The Invasion of Ukraine: What It's About and What We Can Do
Topics:
"The Invasion of Ukraine: What It's About and What We Can Do"
Saturday, March 5, 2022 (Private/Phone)
Participants: Mary (Michael) and Jean-Francois (Samta)
ELIAS: Good morning!
JF: Hey! Good morning, Elias!
ELIAS: (Laughs) And how shall we begin, my friend?
JF: Today this would be a conversation about the situation in Ukraine and Russia and related subjects. And I just want to say thank you to the different people that have contributed to make this happen.
So our first question would be, "Does this event constitute a mass event?"
ELIAS: Yes. Not necessarily a GLOBAL event at this point, although it COULD move in that direction, but I would express that most of you don’t want it to move (chuckles) in that direction. But yes, it would constitute as a mass event but not a global event.
JF: So not a mass event on the scale of, say, the covid mass event?
ELIAS: No.
JF: Okay. I’m not going to ask you about (laughs)… Well, I guess I COULD ask you: Since this was last discussed, how would you assess the potential for THIS becoming a global mass event?
ELIAS: (Pause) I would say that at this point presently it’s not moving in that direction, but I would say also that there would be that potential. It would be present, and that depends on how it is engaged. I would say it depends on how the world engages it – what you do with it.
JF: Yeah. Well, on that subject, how would you qualify the strategy of intense sanctions on the part of much of the world at this point?
ELIAS: (Pause) I would say that (pause) sanctions are effective when they are strategically targeted. Sanctions are not as effective and are simply an annoyance when they’re not. Therefore, I would say that moving in a direction of expressing certain sanctions on another country are effective if they actually are affecting that country and its functioning. I would say that many times sanctions are effective in a longer term rather than short term, and therefore in the immediate situation, they’re not as effective because the other country generally is not tremendously affected, and therefore they don’t care.
JF: With everything being directed at Russia right now, isn’t that bound to affect the functioning of the country significantly?
ELIAS: Long term, yes; short term, not as much. And unfortunately, the situation is that many of the sanctions are more likely to be affecting of the Russian people, which is somewhat defeating the point – because the king doesn’t very much care about the people.
JF: I’ve seen some commentators say that by putting pressure on the people, they then in turn can direct that pressure to the, quote-unquote, “king,” as you call him.
ELIAS: That is the idea, and that is the strategy of the countries that are employing the sanctions. Now, is that necessarily effective? That’s questionable, because what I would say is, I would reiterate: The king doesn’t care about the people, and therefore if they are complaining, he would be more inclined to simply silence them.
JF: Hm. Um-hm.
ELIAS: Therefore once again, in the long term – and when I say long term, I mean long term; I mean years. In the long term, would it be effective? Yes. Because even in silencing the people, eventually it would be affecting of the functioning of the machine of the country, meaning the government and the military. But in relation to the functioning of the country in association with the people? Oh, it will be affecting of them, but the king doesn’t care. Therefore, who is actually being hurt, and who is actually being affected?
Now, it’s a moot point anyway, because the governments will continue to do what they’re doing.
JF: Yeah. And it seems to go beyond the governments, too. Like what I’ve noticed is a lot of things Russia, and Russians, are being canceled everywhere. It looks a lot like cancel culture to me, and it’s targeting everything Russian left and right.
ELIAS: Correct, which is not actually productive. I understand that governments and people think that they are showing solidarity by moving in those types of directions, but they actually aren’t. Because in that, how does it show solidarity to Ukraine by being withholding or even harmful to the Russian people OR to be withholding or harmful to Russian people in other countries, that aren’t even a part OF the country of Russia? Therefore in that, it isn’t actually genuinely showing solidarity to the people of Ukraine.
I would say if you want to show solidarity to the people of Ukraine, then engage THEM. Stop focusing on the Russian people and moving in negative directions against them, and rather move in the direction of supporting the Ukrainian people.
JF: And the form of that, what would you say? I know a lot of countries are sending weapons to Ukraine, some humanitarian aid is being sent, [and] I’m sure there’s a lot of individual interactions and communications. What about sending arms there? Does that qualify as a solidarity expression?
ELIAS: In your world, yes.
JF: (Laughs) Yes. In our un-ideal situation. Yes. Okay.
ELIAS: In your world and how you function, yes, it would be.
I would also express that for many of you that are not part of a government, that are not in a position to be actually involved in what you identify as humanitarian aid in a physical capacity, I would say that I would encourage all of you and each of you to move in directions in which you are expressing some type of action that is supportive, and I would be expressing the encouragement for you to be expressing some type of action that is supportive to both peoples. Therefore, for what you term to be the average individual that is not necessarily part of an organization that may be going to Ukraine to express humanitarian actions, and you are not part of a neighboring country that might be physically taking in refugees, for those of you that are in other countries and that are seemingly somewhat more removed from the situation, what I would say is in addition to genuinely, strongly pooling energy – which is definitely effective and does help – I would also say that I would encourage you all to be expressing some type of actions with the people around you, people that are in your country that are Ukrainian or that are Russian, and that you can express some action of support with all of them. And I would say if you can be helpful to anyone in a refugee situation, by all means do it.
If you can’t, if you are not able to be involved in that type of an action, then by all means move in a direction in your own communities. There are people that are Russian and Ukrainian in every country. Therefore, support those people that are of those lineages and that perhaps have friends and family that are still in these two countries, and be encouraging and supportive of these people. Give them the awareness that you are engaged with them, that they are not alone, that they are not ostracized, that they are not set apart, but that you are knitting together with them in a genuine expression of solidarity.
JF: Thank you. At the beginning of the covid mass event, you had identified that that event was about self-directing, self-structuring and differences.
ELIAS: Yes.
JF: What would you say THIS event is about, essentially?
ELIAS: This is not a global event.
JF: Right.
ELIAS: And what I would say is, what it is about is obvious. It is about choices. It’s about loyalty. It’s about people moving in directions of entitlement and expressing choices that are disconnected. Therefore I would also say that it’s about choosing whether to be connected or whether to be disconnected, and which direction you want to engage. And in that, which direction do you want to promote?
You expressed the question of whether this event could escalate into something more or something global, and in that, this is a very big part of that. What do you want to express energy in the direction of? Being connected? Or being disconnected?
JF: So you’re saying that the direction of disconnect is the direction of escalating this into a global mass event.
ELIAS: Yes.
JF: So all these actions of canceling Russia and Russians, even outside Russia, that is disconnecting?
ELIAS: Yes.
JF: Okay.
You told me some years ago that at completion of the Shift, we would no longer have an armament industry, at least not anywhere near on the scale as it is now. So is that to say that at that point we will no longer be witnessing and experiencing wars like this?
ELIAS: I would say likely not on any significant scale. Now, remember: The factor that you would not necessarily be creating more arms doesn’t mean that you don’t still HAVE artillery and that you couldn’t use what you already have; I would say that it’s a matter of moving in a different direction. Remember: You’re not creating utopia.
JF: Oh, I know that. (Laughs) We can’t forget that.
ELIAS: And the factor that you’re moving in this Shift, yes, your potential for conflict will be significantly lessened, but that doesn’t mean that you will be expressing NO conflict. And in that, remember: As I have expressed, you are a young species, and you are a species that expresses a propensity for violence and destructiveness. And in that, that’s not necessarily good or bad; it’s a matter of perception. I understand that many, many, many of you, especially most of you that engage conversations with myself, look at these conflicts as bad and that they are unnecessary, that they’re bad, that you should be evolving beyond this. But the people that are involving themselves in these conflicts aren’t necessarily perceiving them as bad.
JF: Well, don’t you think the Ukrainians see that as bad?
ELIAS: I do, but the people in authority in Russia don’t think it’s bad. And, the people that are moving in the direction of expressing against the Russian people don’t think that THEY are expressing anything bad.
JF: Hm. Well, in relation to this, John had submitted a question. He asked, “Is the concept of dominance and competition intrinsic to human culture, in the sense that where there are multiple cultures, there will be a natural tendency toward competition?”
ELIAS: Is it intrinsic to your species? Yes. Does that mean that it is not intrinsic to all other species? No. There are many species in which dominance and competition are intrinsic factors, and there are many beings in your universe in which these factors are also part of their expressions. They are not part of EVERY being’s expression, but they also aren’t exclusive to you.
In that, I would express explain the end of that question.
JF: Mm, let’s see. That where there are multiple cultures there will be a natural tendency toward competition?
ELIAS: Yes. If there are multiple cultures, in relation to humans?
JF: Yeah.
ELIAS: Is there natural competition? That depends. I would say yes and no. It depends on the cultures.
JF: Yes. Yes. But in a way, what you’re saying is basically [that] dominance is human nature.
ELIAS: Yes. It is.
JF: Okay. Well, that’s just lovely.
ELIAS: I would also say it is not only human nature, but it is the nature of many, many, many of your animals. But then I would express, you could observe your cetaceans, and in that, dominance and competition is a natural factor for some of them also but not all. And when different societies of cetaceans mix or mingle, does that automatically create a factor of dominance and competition? No; it doesn’t. Neither does it with some cultures or societies of people. But with people, it is less common.
JF: To mix peacefully, you mean?
ELIAS: Correct.
JF: Okay.
ELIAS: Or not necessarily to mix peacefully. You are assuming that dominance and competition automatically means conflict, and it doesn’t. You can express both of those and not necessarily also involve conflict.
JF: Do you mean that basically one can submit by choice?
ELIAS: Or, you can find different outlets to express these factors without generating conflict. You do it in your games.
JF: Mm-hm.
ELIAS: You include both of those factors in a peaceful manner, and you have an outlet for both of those expressions of dominance AND competition.
JF: Right. I guess it’s all about how it is engaged. It can even be playful.
ELIAS: Yes. Precisely.
JF: Okay. Okay. Moving on from this, the last time you and I talked, at the end I asked a quick little question about this situation and you mentioned that we were due for a war. And I’m wondering, what makes you say that? Like our war —
ELIAS: Because of your pattern. I would say that throughout your history, this has been your pattern, that approximately every 80 to 100 years you create some type of significant conflict – a war.
Now, in that, there are different reasons that you create those conflicts, but generally speaking, you have a tendency to create this within that time framework. That’s what I was expressing. And I wasn’t expressing that you are DUE for it; I expressed you are ripe for it.
JF: Mm-hm. Okay. (Laughs) All right. And you also mentioned at that time that many of us, we have been thinking that if and when a larger conflict erupts it might start in the Middle East, and then you said that actually the area where this is happening now, this is a more likely scenario to ignite a larger conflict.
ELIAS: Correct.
JF: And why would that be?
ELIAS: I would say because you have an identification, which you’ve had for quite some time in your history, of what you view as superpowers. And your definition of superpowers remains the same now as it has been pastly. Even though you might express that there are some other countries that have significant military might, they still are not considered to be part of the global superpowers. The global superpowers are Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom. Those are the three superpowers, which creates what? A balance.
But – it also creates a situation in which THAT is what is the most likely to generate a significant conflict that would involve the world. Any other country would either be, in a manner of speaking, dealt with by one or more of the superpowers – or none – or another country and the superpowers would not involve themselves. Or, another country would potentially move in a direction that would lead to annihilation.
Those are the most likely scenarios in relation to your world, that either one country that has significant military might and has nuclear capability would ignite that, and then that would be leading you into a global annihilation; or, one of the other countries that has some type of significant military might, but not necessarily nuclear capacity, might engage in some significant conflict, which then in turn might involve one or more of the superpowers, or might not.
But in relation to the superpowers themselves, that is another subject entirely. Because all of the superpowers have, for the most part, equal military might, and all of the superpowers have nuclear capabilities. And in that, any one of the superpowers that moves in a direction of aggression that is viewed by the other two as stepping over a particular boundary, that has catastrophic implications.
Now, is Russia invading Ukraine, in relation to the other superpowers, stepping over a boundary? Not entirely. It’s not acceptable by the other superpowers, it is frowned upon, but it’s not actually entirely stepping over the boundary.
JF: Hasn’t it been the perception of Russia, or at least the elites – Putin – that the West, through NATO, has been crossing that boundary by expanding eastward and breaking promises?
ELIAS: I would say to a degree, yes.
JF: I mean that’s part of something that’s not widely discussed in the West, but it seems to be part of the narrative from the other side.
ELIAS: I would definitely agree.
JF: It seems to me that if, you know, the West really wanted to defuse a situation like this even before it happens, we would engage diplomacy in a capacity where we acknowledge our part in all of these dynamics, and we acknowledge it and not just project everything upon the other. It seems to me that the diplomatic efforts are not entirely genuine, at least from what it looks like.
ELIAS: I would say that, once again, that is a matter of perception, my friend. I understand what you are expressing, and I would say that that is an avenue that could be engaged. It’s not LIKELY to be engaged.
JF: No.
ELIAS: But it could be. But then again, I would also say to you, my friend, very genuinely, all of these situations are somewhat difficult to address to from a neutral standpoint when speaking to any given person, because it IS all a matter of perception. And I understand YOUR perception and the perception of many, many, many of the people that I engage conversations with or that connect with the information that I am offering, but there are many, many, many, many other individuals that do not and that have a very different perception, and they’re not necessarily wrong. YOU’RE not necessarily wrong. But you’re not necessarily RIGHT, and neither are they. It’s all a matter of perspective and perception. And your perception expresses your guideline that people should be honoring of each other and that they shouldn’t be engaging these types of conflict, and that people should not be conquering other people and that they should not be engaging in this type of dominance. But then there are equally as many people that believe the opposite and express the opposite.
What I would say is, in all of it, what is ultimately important is that everyone is moving in a direction of expressing more self-awareness, and therefore, in doing so, would be expressing more awareness of interconnectedness.
Now; THAT would be what would change the game, in your terms. Because in that, then you begin to realize that whatever you do to someone else, you are doing to yourself; that when you move in the direction of these conflicts, you are not winning, because when there is an expense and a price to pay for someone else, then you pay the price also.
And this is something that is very obvious and that has been expressed over and over and over again in your history, but until now, you haven’t seen it. And this is once again an illustration of what I have expressed to all of you, individually and in small groups, that part of becoming more self-aware is being able to see what is directly in front of you that you have been blind to before, and therefore, then be able to move in the direction of intentional choices.
Do you think the king is generating intentional choices? HE thinks he is. But is he? No, he is not. Because he doesn’t see how it affects him. He doesn’t see how these choices are actually affecting him in a manner that is not to his greatest benefit. And the reason he doesn’t see that is because he doesn’t see how he – HE – is affecting of other individuals in conflict and in harm.
JF: Okay. Well, thank you for that.
ELIAS: You are very welcome. I would also express that this is a situation that is definitely playing out a display of how people easily move into the role of victim, and how other people encourage that or don’t; how other people encourage empowerment or encourage the people to continue to be victims.
JF: Were the Ukrainians projecting en masse an energy of victimhood?
ELIAS: No. I’m not expressing that they were expressing or projecting that to begin with and therefore that’s what they have created – no. I would say that they weren’t paying attention.
JF: Mm-hm. Why didn’t you include China as one of the superpowers?
ELIAS: I did; I simply didn’t use their name but not as a superpower, but I did include them as a significant power. But not as a superpower, because the superpowers-that-be don’t recognize China as a superpower. It is a significant power, with significant might and significant military potential, but the powers-that-be, or the superpowers-that-be, don’t recognize China as a superpower. And the reason that China is not actually recognized as a superpower is that they lack the directedness or the inclusiveness, let us say, of the country.
Now what that means is, either a country moves in a direction that they express considerable patriotism and that creates the connectivity, or they express considerable fear and THAT creates a significant connectivity. Two of the three superpowers express the patriotism; the third expresses a combination of patriotism and fear. China does not express either. It doesn’t express, with the people, a genuine sense of patriotism, but it also doesn’t express enough fear to create the connectivity.
JF: Hm. Okay. A different question: What would you say is the percentage of the population that believes the mainstream media narrative with regards to this event inside Russia?
ELIAS: Inside Russia?
JF: Yeah. How much of them believe how it’s being presented to them?
ELIAS: I would say (pause)… I would say approximately 70%.
JF: Hm. Yeah, that’s pretty high. Same question, in western countries, roughly – I know it’s many countries, but just roughly in the western world?
ELIAS: In the western world, in the countries, how much of them believe what the media is telling them?
JF: Yes, how it’s being presented – in mainstream media, not alternative media.
ELIAS: Mainstream media, I would say 85 to 90%.
JF: Oh, so we believe it more here?
ELIAS: Yes.
JF: We believe OUR version of it more than the Russians believe their version of it?
ELIAS: Correct.
JF: And to use one country as an example, the United States, overall how accurate would you assess the mass media depiction of the event?
ELIAS: (Pause) I would say it depends. I would say that in relation to their depiction of what is occurring in Ukraine that their reporting of that is considerably accurate. I would say in relation to their reports of Russia, hm… semi-accurate. It’s definitely colored.
JF: It’s mixed with propaganda, isn’t it?
ELIAS: Yes, most definitely.
JF: As I’m sure it is on the other side as well.
ELIAS: Oh, there is MUCH propaganda on the other side.
JF: Yeah.
ELIAS: The difference is simply that the people on the other side don’t believe the propaganda as much as the people believe it on the western side.
JF: Mm-hm. Although 70% is still pretty high.
ELIAS: It is. It is.
JF: I purposefully kept this for just the very last moment so that we couldn’t spend too much time on it, but you know, as with any such thing on the global stage, I often wonder, "Hm, I wonder what goes on behind the scenes that no one knows about or that just very few are privy about." And I always wonder about the discrepancy between how the narrative looks, what it looks like and then what actually occurs. So I’ll limit my question to this: Would you say there is – because you’ve talked about the elites before, the few, and I’m not talking about the visible elites on either side, but the deeper elites – do they have anything to do with this? Is there an orchestration element here?
ELIAS: Somewhat. Nothing happens in your world that they don’t have their fingers in.
JF: And with regards to this and them, what would be the motivation for them?
ELIAS: They’re not orchestrating it.
JF: Okay.
ELIAS: But that doesn’t mean that they’re not involved.
JF: And how would you qualify their participation?
ELIAS: I would say that their participation is directed in relation to what benefits them the most. Therefore, for the most part, it’s a financial expression and what moves in the direction of benefitting them the most in relation to that.
[The timer for the end of the session rings]
JF: Armament sales?
ELIAS: Partially. That’s definitely a factor – definitely a factor. Therefore, they definitely profit from that.
JF: Okay, Elias. Well, we’re going to stop here. I told Mary I wouldn’t go over time. (Elias laughs) Thank you to everyone involved, and thank you for sharing your wisdom and your perspective with us – very much appreciated.
ELIAS: You are VERY welcome. And I would express that this has been excellent, to bring this subject to light and to generate an awareness with people in relation to this subject and what they can be doing and what is beneficial and what is not.
JF: Mm-hm.
ELIAS: Regardless of the perspective and regardless of the perception.
JF: Mm-hm.
ELIAS: There are still actions in relation to connectedness or disconnecting, and in that, that would be determining more what is beneficial and what is not.
JF: We hear you. Thank you.
ELIAS: You are very welcome. And you may express my encouragement to all of your participants, and my sincere love and affection to all of you.
In wondrous friendship, until our next meeting, au revoir.
JF: Au revoir.
(Elias departs after 1 hour 2 minutes)
©2022 Mary Ennis. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright 2022 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.