■諸国の在日大使に提案: ロシアによるウクライナ攻撃を終結させ、真の平和をもたらすための方法

■ロシアによるウクライナ攻撃を終結させ、真の平和をもたらすための方法
解決法は単純。ロシアとウクライナ両国がNATOに加盟、又はNATOの解散。この二つのどちらかを選択することを、両国はもとより米国/NATO諸国に促すのです。どちらも実現困難に見えますが、現実的に最も良い解決だと私は思います。ソ連崩壊後、NATO拡大はしないとゴルバチョフに約束したのは米国でした。その後、拡大する方針をエリツィン政権に示した時、エリツィン大統領はNATOはロシアに敵対するためのものではなく、新規加盟国にはNATO軍(すなわち米軍)を新たに駐留させないとの約束を信じました。ところが、NATO、というより米国は約束を破りました。プーチンの蛮行を擁護するのではありませんが、ロシアによる対ウクライナ戦争の責任はNATO拡大にあることは明白。ならば、NATOにロシアとウクライナが加盟するならばロシアからして脅威が消滅します。NATO解散でもよいわけです、もちろん解散はほとんどあり得ないですが、二者択一を迫ることに現実的な効果はあると思います。
　諸国の大使館(大使)に送ったメールをそのまま記します。

My OPINION / RECOMMENDATIONS to the AMBASSADORS in Japan

The way to make peace between Russian Federation and Ukraine

From JUN Sawataishi (59-year-old man in YOKOHAMA, JAPAN)
jsawa@nifty.com
March 2. 2022

INTRODUCTION
In 1997, George F. Kennan, an American diplomat and historian, who was best known as an advocate of a policy of containment of Soviet expansion during the Cold War, stated:

"expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.
Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking."
Full text https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/05/opinion/a-fateful-error.html

On Feb. 21, 2022, Thomas L. Friedman's opinion titled "This Is Putin’s War. But America and NATO Aren't Innocent Bystanders." was published in the New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/opinion/putin-ukraine-nato.html
Note that his opinion was formed prior to the Russian military invasion of Ukraine. He correctly pointed out that NATO's expansion closer to Russia is one of the causes of Putin-Russia's aggressive policy against Ukraine.
I dare to cite long text in his column because of its importance.
// starting citation
defense secretary, Bill Perry. Recalling that moment years later, Perry in 2016 told a conference of The Guardian newspaper:

“In the last few years, most of the blame can be pointed at the actions that Putin has taken. But in the early years I have to say that the United States deserves much of the blame. Our first action that really set us off in a bad direction was when NATO started to expand, bringing in Eastern European nations, some of them bordering Russia.

“At that time, we were working closely with Russia and they were beginning to get used to the idea that NATO could be a friend rather than an enemy … but they were very uncomfortable about having NATO right up on their border and they made a strong appeal for us not to go ahead with that.”

On May 2, 1998, immediately after the Senate ratified NATO expansion, I called George Kennan, the architect of America’s successful containment of the Soviet Union. Having joined the State Department in 1926 and served as U.S. ambassador to Moscow in 1952, Kennan was arguably America’s greatest expert on Russia. Though 94 at the time and frail of voice, he was sharp of mind when I asked for his opinion of NATO expansion.

I am going to share Kennan’s whole answer:

“I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the founding fathers of this country turn over in their graves.

“We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a lighthearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs. What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate debate was. I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe.

“Don’t people understand? Our differences in the Cold War were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime. And Russia’s democracy is as far advanced, if not farther, as any of these countries we’ve just signed up to defend from Russia. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are ? but this is just wrong.”

// the end of citation
My opinion: NATO should have been dissolved after the collapse of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Treaty Organization. ; If NATO's expantion was not implemented in such a aggressive way, Russia's invation of Ukraine was not realized by Putin.

SOLUTION
A solution is simple and obvious. Let's eliminate NATO's threat aginst Russia.
USA and EU (the members of NATO) shall propose two kind of solution to Russia.

Policy A (PA)
Both Ukraine and Russia join NATO.

Policy B (PB)
NATO promise Russia that NATO dissolves.

I preffer PB to PA, because PB will reduce military spending in NATO countries more than PB. But, PA has advantege to PB. That is to say: PA could contain/reduce the threat of People's Republic of China.

Here, I cite NATO's purpose from its web site https://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html
"NATO's purpose is to guarantee the freedom and security of its members through political and military means."
NATO's web site NOT refers to Russian threat. Officially, NATO has no intention to contain Russia. Either PA or PB will surely realize true peace in Europe and Russia.

RECOMMENDATION to the AMBASSADORS in Japan
Please consider PA/PB. If you think PA and/or PB may/might/should/shall be a solution, please let your government start needed action (your gov' mean to present solutions to USA[NATO members]/Russia/Ukraine) in a hurry before its too late to negotiate.