Resuming the Yalta Conference Decisions

1. Background

1.1 In 1945 February 8th – 11th, 80 years ago, the Yalta conference took place between the 3 winning powers: US, UK & USSR. Forming a commitment for borders of peace.

1.2 In this conference it was decided to split Europe and the Middle-East in two spheres of influence: the Soviet (thereafter: Warsaw Pact) vs. the Anglo-American (thereafter: NATO).

2. Concept

2.1 The Anglo-American sphere of influence included: Western Europe; the middle-east, e.g. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran; much of Africa too.

2.2 The Soviet sphere of influence included all the eventual USSR - including also present day Ukraine and Baltic states, and the Warsaw pact states.

3. Problems

3.1 During the cold war of 1945-1991, the USSR overtook the Ba’ath-party (formerly the Nazi-Axis Ba’at movement) countries of Syria and Iraq. From Syria spilled into Lebanon during the 1970s (the Lebanese ‘civil’ war). From Iraq spilled into Kuwait (1990). Egypt was yet another Nazi proxy turning Soviet proxy. The USSR tried to exterminate the state of Israel namely the Jewish population in former Ottoman district of Judea, in order to bridge its proxy-land all the way from Asia to Africa. Thus all the Arab-Israeli wars and the KGB forming its PLO.

3.2 After the fall of the USSR end of 1991, Iran took the Russian side, while several Caucasus countries started taking the American side. Most former Warsaw pact countries took NATO’s side, namely of German industrialization for jobs, likewise did also the Baltics and Ukraine.

3.3 There’s no way to build trust between the US and Russia only in one zone, while continuing to kill each other’s personnel in various others. Thus partial mitigations are contestable.

3.4 Both NATO and Russian populations experience internal demographic decline, during boosted competition from China. This pair of troubles represents the moving of industries eastwards, thus enriching China - while also rendering Westerner populations redundant demographically.

4. Solution

4.1 When the civil war in Ukraine of 2014-2021 was about to expect a Russian overt intervention, I already suggested to exchange Ukraine for Iran: Ukraine would resume its Russian affiliation, while Iran would resume its Western affiliation. This would put an end to hostilities in EMEA.

4.2 This kind of an exchange already started taking shape, with on the one hand the collapse of the Syrian and Gazan dictatorial regimes, and the reintroduction of Western dominance over these territories; and on the other hand the recapture of Ukraine by the far superior Russian military.

4.3 Both NATO and Russia must refocus from war to rebuilding their civilian economies, namely opening up the markets, reducing administrations, building infrastructure and reducing stress.

5. Conclusion

    By now, with the onset of a new US presidency, the exchange of Ukraine for Iran could be considered positively in view of future needs, present capabilities and past commitments