On the anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we have again seen that the Western media are as militarised as the Russians: they have evaporated or manipulated data that they did not like, they have continued to normalise Ukrainian fascism and, of course, they have made the pain and suffering of the victims of the evil side invisible.

Meanwhile, Pablo González remains in prison in Poland as an indirect threat to journalists, although narrative dissent is the most common day to silence her with social death. Therefore, self-care mechanisms have been reinforced by the consolidation of direct censorship, according to Josep Borrell, "doing that (censoring media), we do not attack freedom of expression, but protect it". Welcome to George Orwell's 1984 novel: war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is force.

For the first time in history, the European Union (EU) has donated billions of euros to an affected country, Ukraine, for the purchase of arms and military equipment, including the European Peace Fund. War is peace and the Ministry of Truth is working to sell that idea.

A constant message from the media is that the conflict will be decided on the battlefield, and that is what the Ukrainians want, so they are calling for more weapons, more death and more destruction in the name of peace. Why did they not ask for arms for Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya or Palestine?

Josep Baqués, professor at the University of Barcelona and collaborator at the Spanish Institute of Strategic Studies (IEEE) and the Training and Doctrine Authority of the Army of the Earth (MADOC) has just explained at UNED:

"Here the film is 'Armemos Ukraine for war to end before'. You don't have to be a military, you just have completed the third year of Baccalaureate: the Aristotelian logic, if weapons to the weakest in a war you manage to lengthen the war, not end sooner (…) The tactic is: 'We will punish Russia, but with Ukraine'.

This approach may end in two ways: the usual would be EE.UU. at some point throw the interests of Kiev away or, what is unusual, continue to extol the conflict, which can lead to unexplored scenarios, such as nuclear war. Professor Baqués explained:

"If I risk the third world war to save the sovereignty of the Crimean peninsula, it may be immoral to play those cards (…) to go to nuclear war to preserve the Crimean Ukrainian sovereignty, I don't think there are many professional moralists who agree on it, it's not proportional."

War does not have to be decided on the battlefield. To build a peace arena, we need negotiation and truce. It is possible to foresee the existence of solutions: the resolution of the Ukrainian conflict should be viable by the process of decentralisation and/or federalisation; is it so difficult that the provincial presidents are not appointed by the president, but are voted by the citizens? Is it so difficult for the Russian army to invest at home in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality, and to fulfil the word of NATO in its day and go back to the 1997 limits? Eastern countries, including Ukraine, could be EU members without NATO membership and nothing would happen. These are just a few examples, if you want to understand that war can end, the problem is that some don't want to end, because they don't suffer the consequences.