To British Prime Minister 2025-03-24: The Russian leader is "in favor" of achieving a 30-day ceasefire, but has serious doubts about what conditions should be added. I think this is a "question of com-mon sense".

 To British Prime Minister 

2025-03-24: Weekday edition,

On March 13, President Putin presented the United States with a list of demands for a 30-day ceasefire. This ceasefire proposal seems to be "for Ukraine." Everyone is saying so.

President Trump should promise President Putin that he will not use this as a means to "buy time" for "Ukraine" to "restore the situation," as was the case with the Minsk agreements.

In his new remarks on Thursday, President Putin declared that Russian forces are repelling Ukrainian forces on all fronts, especially now in Kursk. This is a preamble. It is to say that the current war situation should be understood.

"Command and control of the Ukrainian army in the invaded areas is no longer pos-sible," Putin said. And he said, "At the first stage, the Ukrainian army tried to with-draw from the area in small groups. This is no longer possible." He said Ukraine is in a situation of unconditional surrender.

The Russian leader is "in favor" of achieving a 30-day ceasefire, but has serious doubts about what conditions should be added. I think this is a "question of com-mon sense".

In short, at this point Putin, through the translations of state media, has conveyed the following "list of objections". See "Part 1" for details.

Putin said: "We also want guarantees that Ukraine will not mobilize, train soldiers, or receive weapons during the 30-day ceasefire period." I believe this is due to the "failure of the Minsk agreements".

Putin warned that the Ukrainian military may use the ceasefire period to reorganize, increase weapons production, and train new soldiers. Can the Trump administration guarantee this to Russia?

Putin asked: "How will you use these 30 days? Will you continue forced mobilization in Ukraine? Will you receive further arms supplies? Will you train newly mobilized forces? Or will nothing happen?"

He further added that it would be difficult to enforce a ceasefire on such a vast bat-tlefield.

Can the US envoy explain this? The Russian answer would be "no". What do you think, readers of this article?

He said that ceasefire violations could easily be contested and lead to accountabil-ity on both sides. A "control and verification" system to monitor the ceasefire has not yet been put in place, but should be agreed upon. I have the same doubt!

Some of these demands have undoubtedly been conveyed to the US side, and Reu-ters reports that the Kremlin has submitted a formal list of demands to achieve a permanent ceasefire. The envoy must have brought the answers back to Russia.

I think Russia will reject this US ceasefire proposal. I think President Trump is in a difficult position between Europe and the US, but as "comrades of superpowers," I think we should agree on a "satisfactory ceasefire."

President Trump, after the Ukraine war agreement, please do your best to "estab-lish G3MA" to achieve permanent peace in the world. Please.

Part 1 Citations and References

US envoy visiting Moscow this week asks Putin to accept temporary ceasefire plan

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/putin-rejects-us-temporary-cease-fire-plan-appears-military-fatigues

I'll write again tomorrow.

Part 2. "Immigration Control Act Violation Cases" "Weekday Edition".

"Everyone" in the "international community" please help!

First, please read about the "false accusation" of "aiding and abetting violation of immigration law" in 2010.

"Chapter 1". The summary of the incident is as follows.

In the fall of 2008, my company (I am the president) promised to hire "Chinese people studying abroad on student visas". I "issued" them "employment contracts" stating that "LEFCO" would "employ" them when they graduated from university the following spring.

However, after that, the "Lehman Shock" occurred in 2008.

As a result, orders for "system development" from the following year onwards were "cancelled".

As a result, "LEFCO" "cancelled" the "employment" of "those who were scheduled to join the company" in 2009.

Therefore, "they" continued to work at the restaurants where they had worked part-time as students even after graduating in 2009.

In May 2010, the Chinese were arrested for "violating Article 70 of the Immigration Control Act" by "activities outside of the status of residence".

In June 2010, after their arrest, I and the Chinese person in charge of recruitment (KingGungaku) ​​were also arrested.

The reason was "crime of aiding and abetting" the Chinese for "violating Article 70 of the Immigration Control Act (activities outside the status of residence)".

<Reason for arrest> The prosecution said that I and KingGungaku giving the Chinese a "false employment contract" constituted "crime of aiding and abetting" under the Criminal Code.

"Chapter 2". Crimes in the judgment: (arbitrary and ridiculous)

The charges in the indictment are "the very provisions" of "Article 22-4-4 of the Immigration Control Act".

If a "status of residence" is obtained by submitting false documents, the Minister of Justice can revoke the "status of residence" at his "discretion". (And the person will be deported).

Therefore, even if a Chinese person submits "false documents," it is not a crime. It is not a crime to "aid" an innocent act.

The "reason for punishment" in the judgment:

1. The Chinese person obtained "resident status" by submitting a "false employment contract."

2. And they violated the Immigration Control Act (activities outside of their status of residence).

3. The Chinese person obtained "resident status" because "we" provided the Chinese person with a "false employment contract."

4. The Chinese person was able to "reside" in Japan because he obtained "resident status."

5. Because of that, the Chinese person was able to "work illegally."

6. Therefore, "we" who "provided" the Chinese person with a "false employment contract" were punished for "aiding" the Chinese person's "activities outside of their status of residence."

This is an "error" in the arbitrary "logic of law."

This reasoning is the "argument" that "when the wind blows, the barrel maker (profits)." This goes against "legal logic" even internationally.

The "criminal reason" in the indictment cannot be a crime because the provisions of the "Immigration Control Act," which is a "special law," take precedence over the "Criminal Code," which is a "general law."

My argument:

"1": The Immigration Control Act stipulates that the Minister of Justice will revoke the act of a foreigner who has obtained a residence status by submitting false documents (Immigration Control Act: Article 22-4-4, cancellation of residence status) through "administrative disposition." That's all.

"2": The Chinese who engaged in "unqualified work activities" are not guilty. The reason is that their "employers" have not been punished for the "crime of aiding and abetting illegal employment" under Article 73-2 of the Immigration Control Act.

Therefore, under the principle of "equality under the law," the Chinese are not guilty.

The Japanese government has punished "diplomats and Philippine embassy staff" for the exact same "criminal reason."

However, like the Chinese government, the Philippine government is also silent.

The rest will be published in the Saturday edition.

Part 3. Special Zone Construction. A new business model.

Special Zones accept refugees and immigrants as temporary immigrant workers and limit their residence to the special zone.

Developed countries use them as low-wage workers and achieve high economic growth again.

Refugees and immigrants can get jobs and live a hopeful, humane life.

Temporary immigrants are low-wage, but "food, clothing, shelter, medical expenses, and education are free."

NO2: https://world-special-zone.seesaa.net/

NO1: https://naganoopinion.blog.jp/

For NO4: to NO10:, please see the Sunday edition.

Thank you.

Yasuhiro Nagano

Past articles can be viewed at the blog below.

https://toworldmedia.blogspot.com/