Immortality as a Weapon in Grand Strategy

April 30—The proposal by Russian President Vladimir Putin for a three-day truce, commencing May 8-10—“the Russian side reiterates its willingness to enter peace talks without preconditions, with a view to eliminating the root causes behind the Ukraine crisis and establishing constructive interaction with international partners”—has been met with panic and derision. This reaction, and rejection, comes from representatives—though not necessarily from the population—of Ukraine, as well as from the “Russiagate media circus,” i.e., the usual suspects from the Anglo-American intelligence agencies, sometimes euphemistically called the “legacy media.”

The reason for the rebuke is not, as claimed, the short length of the proposed truce—three days. It is well known that there was a previous 30-day truce in March, initiated by Donald Trump, to which both Russia and Ukraine agreed, yet it did not hold. The concern over the new Putin proposal lies in its timing and how it aligns with current history.

There is an “isochronic” character to this proposal. That is, an action occurring on May 8-9 not only implicitly re-celebrates the triumph of what President Franklin Delano Roosevelt called the “Four Freedoms” over the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, but by commencing a truce on that day, it recommits humanity—not merely Ukraine, Russia, or the United States—to a knowable, successful pathway out of Hell.

The truce is set to begin on May 8, known as “Victory in Europe Day,” marking the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War in Europe. It is celebrated in Russia on May 9, because the official time of the war’s ending was 11:01 Central European Time (CET) on May 8, 1945, making it 12:01 a.m. and later, on May 9, 1945, across Russia and the Soviet Union’s 11 time zones. Notably, May 8-9 was a celebration of victory over fascism before victory was falsely claimed to be contingent upon, and tied to, the deployment and detonation of the atomic bomb—something President Roosevelt would not have done.

The year 2025 will mark the last major anniversary in which any of the surviving veterans of the Second World War will be alive to participate. In 2024, there were still, remarkably, 75,000 veterans of World War II alive in Russia and 66,000 American veterans at the beginning of this year. Many of these individuals—particularly in the case of Russia—would have been no older than 12 or 13, some even younger, when they fought and perhaps killed to defend their nations.

There is also the “Immortal Regiment” assembly, largely identified with Russia, in which the photographs of those who died in the war are worn and carried by their descendants, so that they, through posterity, march, fight, and triumph again. This is not merely symbolic, but isochronic—the embodiment of the commitment for which not only 27 million Russians, but tens of millions of others worldwide, soldiers and civilians alike, gave their lives—their “last full measure of devotion”—so that we, their descendants, might live. (It is rarely mentioned, but 100 million Chinese were refugees in their own country during that war, and Chinese civilian and military deaths likely exceeded 20 million.) The celebration of that victory—not only over fascism, but also in favor of “the better angels of human nature” over evil—is worthy of recognition, including through a truce dedicated in the image of that commitment made 80 years ago.

In this context, discussions about a “peace without preconditions” are elevated beyond mere geopolitics—they take on a deeper meaning. That is necessary. There has to be a “higher hypothesis” for peace. As former Austrian Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl stated in an interview: “It’s not just about bilateral or trilateral relations—between Moscow, Kiev, and Washington—but about an in-depth transformation of the entire security system in Europe. The issue is on the agenda, and Moscow has long been demanding that it be addressed. Simply negotiating a ceasefire around Ukraine won’t solve the issue, because its roots run much deeper.”

The thermonuclear threat remains barely contained. Former Russian Security Council head Nikolay Patrushev, in a TASS interview yesterday, accused Western powers of “deploying their military machine against Russia and becoming delirious with nuclear apocalypse scenarios.” He pointed to destabilization originating from Brussels, Berlin, Paris, and London. American Vice President J.D. Vance has remarked, “There’s this weird idea among the mainstream media that if this thing goes on for just another few years, the Russians will collapse, the Ukrainians will take their territory back, and everything will go back to the way that it was before the war. That is not the reality that we live in…”

Vance would do well to read the April 24, 2019 RAND report, Extending Russia: Competing From Advantageous Ground, to better understand how the “media” arm of Anglo-American intelligence—the same forces that attempted to prevent Trump from becoming president—have been briefed on their assignment to prevent the resumption of U.S.-Russia relations. That report, which outlined methods for baiting Russia into what Pope Francis once characterized as “World War Three in pieces,” recommended, well before 2022, the provision of lethal aid to Ukraine, increased U.S. support for Syrian rebels, promoting “regime change in Belarus,” exploiting tensions in the Caucasus, and other strategies to neutralize Russia. Reviewing the trajectory of events since that report was written provides valuable insight.

This also explains why, when the Iranian foreign minister proposed last week that the United States should rejuvenate its flagging nuclear power industry by assisting Iran in building 19 civilian nuclear power plants—referencing Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace initiative of the 1950s—the “mainstream media” would never report it to the American people. Re-conceptualized, could this proposal actually be seen as an invitation for Russia, the world’s leading nuclear power plant producer, to collaborate with the United States on global stability through economic development? Could a pilot project in Iran serve as a means of de-nuclear-weaponizing the region? “Our longstanding game plan is to build at least 19 more reactors, meaning that tens of billions of dollars in potential contracts are up for grabs. The Iranian market alone is big enough to revitalize the struggling nuclear industry in the United States,” said Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in an April 21 speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The United States—and the world—stands at a crossroads. Will it follow the neo-imperialist policy path of the disastrous Vietnam War, which ended ignominiously on April 30, 1975—exactly 50 years ago—or embrace FDR’s vision of ending imperialism, including in its fascist forms, creating prosperity in the wake of war, particularly in what is now called the Global South? Though the proposal for a May 8-10 truce is only a first step, the spirit in which it is advanced—the spirit of the Immortal Regiment of World War II veterans—offers a foundation for embracing the Principles for a New International Security and Development Architecture, the focus of the Schiller Institute conference, A Beautiful Vision for Humanity in Times of Great Turbulence!, scheduled for May 24-25, 2025.