The Invasion of Ukraine, Part II
Topics:
“The Invasion of Ukraine, Part II”
“How Much Belief in Propaganda?”
“The King Is Careful in How He Is Engaging”
“Two Factors in Ukrainian Resiliency: People Holding to Freedom After WW II and Being Self-Directed After COVID”
“Aspects of War With and Without Honor”
“The Virus, Isolation and Its Effect on This War”
“Unrealistic Perceptions That Putin Wouldn't Attack”
“How to Alleviate Possible Food Shortage: Purchase Only What You Will Consume”
“Power in Nurturing and Compassion”
Saturday, March 26, 2022 (Private/Phone)
Participants: Mary (Michael) and Jean-François (Samta)
“The people are trying. They are trying to acknowledge each other. Despite what they are being ordered, despite what they are being told, they are trying – and they are afraid on both sides.
“I encourage all of you: Be expressing cooperation and be expressing the energy of that, projecting it. The projection of energy is tremendously powerful. DO IT.”
ELIAS: Good morning!
JF: Hey, good morning, Elias!
ELIAS: (Chuckles) And how shall we begin?
JF: Well, today is going to be a continuation of the conversation about Ukraine and Russia and war. So, thank you to the individual making this session happen.
It’s been about three weeks since you and I talked about this, and it’s been a month of war now, and I think much of the world has been pretty impressed with how the Ukrainians have resisted. Clearly, there’s a war on the ground, but there is also a war of perception going on in the world. I know that in Russia, the government is calling it a “special military operation” to remove Nazis out of Ukraine, and I don’t know, that sounds as plausible to me as the “weapons of mass destruction” did in Iraq. And people in Russia, apparently if they call this a war they can get imprisoned for up to fifteen years.
My first question would be, I was asking you last time about the percentages of people believing or buying into the propaganda. Have these percentages moved at all?
ELIAS: (Pause) I would say yes, that they shift and they somewhat move back and forth, and in that, they vary. For the most part, I would say that the people that believe the propaganda in Russia are… At this point it varies, because the propaganda keeps changing, and therefore the people are not quite certain as to what to believe. They were more inclined to believe the initial stories, and they do seem to, in part, believe that the Americans are instigating the situation and therefore that Russia is simply defending. And that is, for the Russian people, somewhat more plausible, because they have been expressing listening to THAT type of propaganda for a considerable time framework, and therefore, in that, it is more believable to them.
JF: Mm-hm. Yeah.
ELIAS: Now, in relation to OTHER countries and what THEY believe, that also varies. Because of the situation with the mass event, many people in other countries are suspicious of the media.
JF: And when you say “mass event,” you mean COVID?
ELIAS: Yes.
JF: Yeah.
ELIAS: Therefore, there are many, many, many people in many countries that are skeptical and are not quite certain what to believe – and that they don’t necessarily believe pictures or videos, because they have seen pictures and videos in relation to the virus that were not necessarily true.
JF: But you were saying last time that the percentage of people in the West, roughly, that believed the propaganda, was higher than in Russia.
ELIAS: Correct.
Now, I would say that that has shifted slightly in Russia, as I expressed, because they have been being told that the United States is involved and that they are the aggressors, and the people in Russia are more inclined to believe that. Therefore, that has increased the percentage of people in Russia that believe the propaganda slightly – not tremendously, but slightly. Therefore, rather than 70 percent, I would say that it’s maybe moved to (pause) 75.
JF: Okay. Well, on that subject that you were just bringing up now, believing images and videos, when you talked to Daniil and Natasha three weeks ago also, you had said that the Russian military was being somewhat careful and strategic, that they could have gone in and annihilated the Ukrainians fairly quickly. But since then, even though we keep hearing in western media that the Russian military is underperforming, news reports have shown images and videos of attacks that seem to have significantly escalated with Russia seemingly deliberately attacking civilians, like hospitals and schools and residential buildings and shelters and humanitarian corridors. Would you say generally that is accurate? Because you were saying that the western media depiction of what is occurring inside Ukraine was pretty accurate. And would you say that the Russians are still being somewhat careful at this point in what they target?
ELIAS: I wasn’t saying they were being careful as to what they target; I said they were being careful in relation to HOW they were engaging. And your initial expression with that was correct, in that I was expressing that had they not been being careful, they could have simply moved in and annihilated the entire country. They have the capability to do that. They didn’t do that because that would have created a significant backlash, not simply in the form of sanctions. But if they had moved in that direction, it would have been likely that there would have been much more response and reaction from other countries in the world.
But are they still being careful? Yes. They’re being careful about HOW they do it. They’re being careful in relation to moving in the direction of traditional weaponry, traditional warfare.
JF: Have any chemical weapons been used?
ELIAS: Not to this point, no.
JF: Okay.
ELIAS: And this is what I am expressing, that they ARE being careful. They are moving in a direction of generating conventional warfare, conventional directions and weaponry. And in that, that is being strategic and being careful. They aren’t using any significant types of weaponry that would be different from conventional weapons. They aren’t using nuclear weapons, and they aren’t, at this point, using chemical warfare either.
Therefore in that, they’re being strategic and watching themselves – or rather (chuckles), the "king" [Putin] [1] is being careful and watching what his military is doing, and not moving in directions that will raise greater alarms than have already been raised. He can accommodate sanctions; that isn’t tremendously bothersome to him. But once again, that’s also because it’s not bothersome to him what the people may actually suffer.
JF: Is the war according to plan, in terms of the "king"? That’s what we keep hearing in the western media, that it isn’t and they’re blundering and so on. Is that just western propaganda or wishful thinking?
ELIAS: In that, I would say he’s not blundering. I would say that is it moving according to plan? For the most part, yes. I would also say that there are some factors that have not necessarily been accounted for, such as the retaliation of the Ukrainian people or the determination of the Ukrainian people. I would say that he did somewhat more expect them to simply cower. He expected that he would instill fear and that then it would be easy to subdue them, but that has not entirely been the situation.
JF: No. No. And their leader also has become rather a hero in the world.
ELIAS: I would say also that he didn’t expect that. He didn’t expect him to be as vocal.
JF: Yeah, definitely. Much of the world has been impressed by the resiliency, the courage, the fervor of the Ukrainian people and their leader. What can you say about the Ukrainian people in terms of their character and qualities as a people? Where does this resolve come from, in a way?
ELIAS: I would say that it’s no different from any OTHER people. I would say that at this point in your history, my friend, there are very few countries in your world that would simply succumb to fear and allow themselves to be taken over, or occupied. I would say that this is one point that rose from your Second World War that is what you would term to be a positive, that people are not willing to simply allow another country to take over. And any country that has experienced their own autonomy and freedom will definitely fight for it and fight to keep it. I would say that this is not 1935. This is not 1940. This is a very different time, and people are very much in a direction of holding to their freedom.
And I would say that what is somewhat surprising in this situation with the "king" is that, after what had occurred in other countries in relation to the Soviet Union before they incorporated another revolution and reverted back to being Russia again, but the occupied countries from the Soviet Union and the determination of those people in relation to those countries that were once again liberated, it is somewhat surprising – not entirely, but somewhat surprising – that he hasn’t taken that into account, that people are stronger. And then adding to it, what has occurred in relation to the mass event with your virus and people moving in a direction of becoming more self-directing and more self-structuring, that is definitely a factor also. And putting those factors together, it creates a situation in which you have a people that are not simply willing to roll over.
JF: Yeah. This war has received very widespread condemnation and mobilization, and I’m wondering why other wars and conflicts in recent decades have not necessarily received the same kind of worldwide mobilization. Are these generally for the same kinds of reasons as what you just expressed? I’m thinking about Syria and Afghanistan and Yemen and Iraq, and even Tibet and the Uyghurs in China, and Palestine. Like what we’re seeing now seems to be quite a coming together of the world taking a stand against this aggression. Why is this —
ELIAS: Remember what I expressed to you in our previous conversation [2]: You’re now involving what you in the world define as a superpower —
JF: It’s the nuclear weapons.
ELIAS: — a superpower moving in a direction of aggression. And that, to the rest of the world, is not to be tolerated.
JF: But the Americans going into Iraq, that was a superpower also.
ELIAS: Yes, but I would say that although that was a war also, the Americans painted that picture in relation to what they generally usually do, that they aren’t claiming to be generating a war, they’re not being an aggressor to take over a country, they’re involving themselves in a military action to FREE a country.
JF: But that’s what the Russians are claiming, too.
ELIAS: I understand. I understand. But in that, the Russians also do have the agenda of assimilating that country into their own.
JF: Mm-hm.
ELIAS: And it has leant more so in that direction because of physical proximity.
JF: Right.
ELIAS: The Americans were not moving in a direction to assimilate Iraq or Iran or Afghanistan, or any other country, into their own. They were not in a direction to make these countries a part of their own, or provinces of their own.
Now, that doesn’t mean that what the Americans were doing was any less war or any less of an aggressive act. And in that, I would say that in relation to people in their assessment and their definition of war, the conflicts that the United States and the Americans have engaged since the Second World War have been no less acts of war. But because they are not expressing in a direction of including the intention of assimilating these other countries into their own and making them provinces of their own country, the rest of the world views the situation differently and is less likely to involve themselves.
JF: Okay. You’ve spoken of how World War II was fought without honor, that there was a loss of that and that it engendered much trauma in the world. [3] How would you qualify the present war with regard to honor?
ELIAS: (Pause) I would say that that is difficult, because it’s not black and white. It’s not singular. Therefore, I would say that to this point, the soldiers are attempting to engage this war with some semblance of honor, meaning that they are attempting to not move in the direction of simply annihilating everything in their path.
Now, what I’m speaking of are the soldiers on the ground. That’s not the same as pilots that are bombing, or even ground troops that are bombing that are not in actual physical combat with people. Are you understanding?
JF: Yes, I am.
ELIAS: Very well.
Now, in that, this is the reason that it’s somewhat tricky and not black and white, because the soldiers that are actually on the ground advancing are, I would say, trying to be fighting with honor – meaning that they aren’t simply annihilating everything in their path. But – but – that doesn’t apply to all of them, and it doesn’t apply to those that are not actually directly encountering people.
JF: Yes, and that speaks of connection and interconnectedness, doesn’t it? Because the people on the ground are in a position of being connected; it’s right there. But if you’re isolated, separated from the people on the receiving end, you’re more dissociated.
ELIAS: Yes.
JF: And therefore, you can engage the actions differently and not have that repercussion within you of that sense of connectedness.
ELIAS: Yes. I would agree. And I would say that this, though, is the fortune of war, and that this is a part of war. And what I would say in that is that from the dawn of time in your reality, in relation to ALL wars there has been that factor. And in that, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the people were fighting the wars without honor.
Now, in that, I would say if you think about war in times of the Greeks or the Romans in ancient times, or the Egyptians, they had weaponry such as catapults. In that, those that would be operating that type of weaponry were not directly involved, let us say, with people. Sometimes they might be, but for the most part, the people would be in positions that were unseen. And that would be the reason that they would engage with this type of weaponry, to break down walls. Therefore I would say that yes, in your present time framework, is there much more collateral damage? Yes, there is. Because the weaponry is much more sophisticated, and it is much more far-reaching and can be much more destructive. But in that, it’s a matter of recognizing that you have to separate the mindset of the people that are generating, let us say, mass destruction and the people that are fighting on the ground.
JF: Mm-hm. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense to me actually, that distinction.
ELIAS: Because war is war, and it is tremendous conflict and there is always tremendous casualty. And in that, it is designed to be generating mass destruction. That’s not what determines whether an army, or a people, are fighting a war with honor or not. It is the [inaudible] of troops that are the ground troops that determines whether the people fight with honor.
JF: So you’re saying that the troops on the ground, they do attempt to —
ELIAS: They are trying. I’m not saying they absolutely do; I’m saying that they’re trying.
JF: Okay.
ELIAS: It is not black and white at this time. They are following orders, and there are some of them that are expressing in a direction of being disconnected, let us say, and that are simply expressing themselves in a capacity of very similar to wild animals. Which is also a part of the strategy, because – not the strategy of the people on the ground, because they don’t have the strategy; it is the people that are behind the scenes that develop the strategy. But in that, what I would say is that part of the strategy is knowing that this is a conflict that is ensuing on the coattails of a prior mass event AND how that mass event was handled. And that with that virus, the world moved in a direction of isolation, and the direction of isolation created a situation in which now you have people and soldiers that are not in the same mind frame as they would be otherwise.
JF: Are you saying that the strategists on the Russian side counted on that factor of humans having grown more isolated to engender or participate in a war such as this in a particular capacity?
ELIAS: Yes.
JF: Knowing that isolation can lead to behaviors that are more –
ELIAS: That are destructive and that are disconnected. And yes, that has definitely been factored into the strategy. The timing is not an accident.
JF: Was that the main reason behind the timing?
ELIAS: I would say… yes! (Pause)
JF: You’ve recently mentioned the importance of cooperation in the war in Ukraine to some people. On the part of the Ukrainians who are being attacked, how would you even cooperate without capitulating? What does cooperation look like for them in a situation like this? How do you not match energy when you’re being attacked?
ELIAS: (Pause) That can be done, but it’s very unlikely. But what I would say is, the factor of cooperation in relation to the Ukrainian individuals AND the Russian individuals at this point is a matter of when they find themselves in situations in which they are not necessarily directly, immediately, in the moment being physically threatened, a life-threatening situation – not that they aren’t being threatened period, because there are many different manners in which people threaten each other, but many of them are not LIFE-threatening.
JF: So you mean like those… For example, there has been a series of meetings, negotiations between delegations of each side: that would be an avenue where the cooperation CAN take place?
ELIAS: Yes. But also in situations even in the street, in which individuals may be expressing in manners that are not intended to threaten each other. Therefore, in the actual interactions of people in the streets to not be expressing aggression, to not be moving in directions of threatening each other.
JF: But the Russians are there to do that?
ELIAS: But even if they ARE there, they don’t necessarily have to be threatening, and the other individuals don’t necessarily have to be threatening either. The factor that a person is present but isn’t directly threatening your life doesn’t necessarily mean that they are beyond cooperation, or that you are beyond cooperation simply because they are there.
JF: Mm-hm. Mm-hm. Those negotiations, have they been engaged in good faith by both sides?
ELIAS: (Pause) I would ask you how you would define “in good faith.”
JF: With the intention of arriving at an agreement that would stop the war.
ELIAS: I would say “in good faith” in your definition up to the point of expressing to stop the war. Being in agreement in negotiations to perhaps generate an agreement to compromise, is that being expressed in good faith? Yes. But in relation to the intention of stopping the war? No.
JF: The Russians have no intentions of stopping the war?
ELIAS: Not at this point. Not unless Ukraine surrenders – which is unlikely.
JF: Yeah. I mean, they’ve said so themselves. They’re not doing that.
Last time we talked, you had said that the Ukrainians had not been paying attention prior to the invasion. What do you mean by that? What were they not paying attention to?
ELIAS: They weren’t paying attention to the seriousness of Mr. Putin. They weren’t paying attention to how seriously he was moving in the direction that he was moving in – very similar to the situation with the Jews and the other groups in Germany. They simply couldn’t believe that someone would move in that direction; it was incomprehensible. And in this situation also, it was incomprehensible that he would actually do what he’s threatening to do. He wouldn’t ACTUALLY move in these directions; the rest of the world wouldn’t ALLOW it. But the rest of the world is (chuckles) not going to move into Russia and subdue Russia – that would be the beginning of your next world war.
Therefore in that, I would say that there has been some unrealistic perceptions – not only in Ukraine, but of much of the world – that a country such as Russia wouldn’t necessarily move in directions of war because the rest of the world would stop them. A country such as China wouldn’t necessarily move in the direction of war, because the rest of the world would stop them – no, they necessarily wouldn’t, just as they’re not with Russia. Yes, they are being vocal and expressing their outrage and their disapproval, and they are expressing physical actions to [inaudible] sanctions and in other expressions, but no one is marching in [inaudible] and stopping them. (Pause)
JF: I’ve been hearing all sorts of allegations in the western media like Putin is delusional, he is mentally unstable, he is ill, he's paranoid. In a way, it sounds like you’re saying it’s the rest of the world that has been delusional.
ELIAS: I would say that he may have his delusional aspects also, but yes, I would say that to a degree the rest of the world HAS been somewhat delusional. You've had this perception since the Second World War that superpowers or major powers would not be so foolish as to engage war of this type because the rest of the world would stop them, because the Allied forces stopped Germany. But they actually went into Germany and subdued them and conquered; therefore in that, there is this perception that the other superpowers would do the same in relation to one of the superpowers or a major power, if that power moved in a direction of doing what Germany did by attempting to take over and invade another country and assimilate that country – or what Japan did.
JF: And you’re saying we’re not about to do that?
ELIAS: I am (chuckles) definitely saying you are not about to do that. It is a different time now, my friend. You have weapons of mass destruction, and you have one of the superpowers that has shown it’s not afraid to use them – which then means that it puts the other powers in a position in which they must be willing to use them. And don’t delude yourself to think that they wouldn’t, if they were actually invaded.
If British troops or troops from the United States set foot beyond the boundaries of Russia, do not delude yourself into thinking that there wouldn’t be tremendous retaliation – there would be.
It won’t happen. The British are not going to send troops into Russia. The Americans are not going to send troops into Russia. They may send troops along the sides, in other countries that are friendly to their presence.
JF: What about if they send troops in Ukraine?
ELIAS: They might do that in relation to a request, but that is even somewhat iffy.
JF: I’m still surprised you included the UK as a superpower. On the grounds of what? Their army is smaller than China, for example.
ELIAS: I would say, though, that they are (chuckles) much more organized and much more connected.
JF: Ah. They do pull a lot of levers, don’t they?
ELIAS: China is a very large country, I agree. But being a large country is not the only factor. It’s not only numbers. It’s also a matter of allegiance, organization, discipline and…
JF: Alliances?
ELIAS: Connection.
JF: Yeah.
ELIAS: Not even alliances. That is definitely very helpful, but not even that. But within the country itself, whether it has the connection, the allegiance of the people.
JF: To the nation. Like the social fabric, you’re talking about?
ELIAS: Yes. I would say that the United States is a very large country and it has many states, many provinces, but in that, ALL of them are united together and would unite together if it were a matter of war and defending its boundaries. The United Kingdom – Britain – is not only Britain, it is the United Kingdom, and it is in that a massive force. It is many countries that make up the equivalent of one very large country.
[The timer for the end of the session rings]
ELIAS: Russia is a very large country. What these three superpowers have in common is not only that they all possess weapons of mass destruction, and (chuckles) massive amounts of them, but that they all have that allegiance, that organization, that discipline.
JF: So in a way are you saying that the nationalism of China is a little bit smoke and mirrors?
ELIAS: It’s not as strong. It is a very large country, and it is a divided country.
JF: Hm. Okay. The ringer has rung, but I would like to ask one more question, please. The war and the sanctions are creating a situation where not only fuel costs are increasing significantly, but also fertilizers and production of food. Apparently Russia and Ukraine produce close to 30 percent of the world’s wheat, for one thing, and Russia is the largest exporter of components used to make fertilizers used in food production. Now those exports are stopped or greatly diminished, and it seems like we have a food crisis in the making. I’ve read articles that detail this subject further, and experts are concerned about upcoming famines. How would you assess that kind of potential within a year’s time, say, in relation to harvests? And… Yeah, let’s just start with that.
ELIAS: I would say, it’s a matter of altering priorities and changing production. I would say that for one, the United States itself has the capability of producing enough oil and enough food, but it’s all intertwined, my friend. It is a significant web that has been woven since the Second World War. There is much more to it than what people think – (chuckles) or what they know – that there have been agreements that have been made in order to create a balance. Therefore, do you believe that Russia supplies that much of the grain supply and that without it the western world cannot survive or cannot produce that? That is naive.
JF: No, but what I was hearing is that it’s not the western countries that are so much in danger, it’s the poorer countries.
ELIAS: That would be dependent upon the western countries also. In this, I would say that it’s a matter of how you look at the situation and what you do with it. And in that, it’s very similar the subject of climate change, my friend. That you can look at the situation from climate change as being very doom and gloom, and you can move in that direction. You can also move in the direction of recognizing that there ARE actions you can do and you can take, and that you can move with it. There are definitely alterations that would be necessary to put in place in relation to food stores and fuel, but it’s not that it cannot be done; it’s simply that you AREN’T doing it.
JF: Is this true, that the amount of food wasted in western countries – and let’s speak of North America specifically – the amount of food wasted, most of it happens at the household level, and that the food wasted would be enough to feed the people who are hungry in the world?
ELIAS: Yes. And it’s not only at the household level.
JF: No. No. But the reason I pose it like that is that people are often wondering, “What can I do to change things?” Well, if we stop wasting food, it changes the supply chain.
ELIAS: The entire dynamic. Yes, it does. And in that, I would say that how do you stop wasting food? Stop purchasing as much.
JF: Yeah.
ELIAS: Because much of what you purchase is perishable. Therefore, if you are genuinely paying attention to what you consume and you are only purchasing what you will actually consume, you will waste so much less – I would say 50 percent or more.
JF: Wow. (Pause) Okay, can we end on something encouraging? (Laughs) It seems like there’s a lot of bad news, or what sounds to me like… Sometimes —
ELIAS: I would actually say that much of what we have been discussing isn’t actually bad news; it’s simply information, AND much of it has been about what is actually happening. And as I expressed in relation to what you were asking, this is not necessarily a situation of entering into a war without honor, that the people on the ground are actually trying. I understand that it can be discouraging that the strategists have taken into account the situation of coming out of two years of isolation with the virus.
JF: Yeah, did you catch my energy when you said that? (Both laugh) I thought, “Oh my god!” Yeah.
ELIAS: But even still, the people are trying. They are trying to acknowledge each other. Despite what they are being ordered, despite what they are being told, they are trying – and they are afraid on both sides.
JF: Elias, you said that we are a naturally aggressive species. We were speaking of human nature last time and that domination is human nature. Is it human nature because we are a young species, or is it more fundamental than that?
ELIAS: (Pause) I would say it is somewhat fundamental, but let me express to you in this manner. This may be a simple analogy. (Pause) There are many species of animals that can be encouraged to be vicious and can be encouraged to be aggressive, but they can also be encouraged to not be. I would say that as a very simple example, there are dogs that you use for fighting in pits, and you can encourage them to fight by generating certain conditions with them and expressing certain behaviors with them, and it will encourage them to be very aggressive and fight to the death. But those same animals, those same dogs, can be encouraged to not generate that behavior and can be safe and cooperate with people and with other animals – those same animals, dependent upon what they are taught and what they are exposed to in relation to behaviors with people around them.
Now, I would say that yes, you are a young species, and that is definitely a contributing factor because this IS somewhat in your nature. You have this ability to be aggressive and vicious – but you also have the ability to be compassionate and loving.
JF: It’s what we make of it, huh?
ELIAS: It IS. It definitely is. I would say that to this point, you have moved in your history in exploring your dominance, being the apex predator, and in that, exploring what you can do and what you can possess and what you can manipulate, and to a degree exploring what happens when you express aggression and disconnect.
Remember: Interconnectedness is natural. That is consciousness. Therefore, moving in a direction of disconnect is different; it’s something that ISN’T natural. Therefore, it’s something that holds a fascination and begs being explored. But in that, I would say that at this point in your history, you’re beginning to move in somewhat of a new direction. You’re beginning to see that you have just as much power in nurturing and in compassion as you do in aggression, and that is a new evolution. Therefore, I would say to you, my friend, that that also is part of this Shift, because it’s part of becoming more self-aware, and in becoming more self-aware you’re beginning to see and experience your strength; and that strength doesn’t necessarily come from aggression, that you can express strength without aggression, without conflict. And that is different.
JF: Well, that was the encouraging bit I was hoping for. Thank you so much. We’ll end it here.
ELIAS: (Laughs) Very well, my friend. I shall greatly be anticipating our next meeting.
JF: Me too.
ELIAS: And I encourage all of you: Be expressing cooperation and be expressing the energy of that, projecting it. The projection of energy is tremendously powerful. DO IT.
JF: Thank you.
ELIAS: Until our next meeting, in tremendous love and in dear friendship as always, au revoir.
JF: Au revoir.
[1] Session 202203021
[2] Session 202203021
[3] Sessions 202010242 and 202010311
(Elias departs after 1 hour 16 minutes)
Copyright 2022 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.