Our Friday News Analysis | What the World Reads Now!

Photo by Isaac Maffeis on Unsplash

Living Words of Saint Pope John Paul II | “Beyond Fear: The Civilization of Love”

To ensure the new millennium sees a renewed human spirit driven by genuine freedom, men and women must overcome fear. We must move past fear to rediscover hope and trust, which are not naive optimism but the foundations of responsible action rooted in conscience,
where “man is alone with God” (Gaudium et Spes, 16).

There, he recognizes he is not alone amid life's mysteries,
for he is surrounded by God's love.

Hope and trust might seem outside the scope of the United Nations, but they are essential.

The politics of nations cannot ignore the higher spiritual aspect of human life, as neglecting this undermines human progress and freedom.

Diminishing human dignity or restricting goodness compromises freedom.

To restore hope and trust at this century's end, we must look beyond immediate concerns and reconnect with transcendent ideals that the human soul seeks.

Saint Pope John Paul II
United Nations Headquarters New York
5 October 1995

This week’s reflection: “Beyond Fear: The Civilization of Love”

Building the Bridge Foundation

               Saint Pope John Paul II spoke to billions over six decades, to young people, to presidents and peacemakers, and to the forgotten and the powerful alike.

               John Paul II was a theologian, a world leader, a statesman, a poet, and a pastor, revered by billions.

                He addressed war and peace, human dignity, mercy, and the deepest longings of the human heart.

               Those words did not stay in the past. They are living words. And they speak now.

               Even more alive in our times, the Pope's Message invites readers to pause and reflect.

               evangelicalpope.org

               There is no cost. There never will be.

OUR WEDNESDAY NEWS ANALYSIS | US HUBRIS HAS LED TO A MIDDLE EAST QUAGMIRE

The deeper failure lies in Washington’s attempt to impose an outdated model of regional domination on the Middle East and a world that has fundamentally changed (Reuters)

By Ramzy Baroud
September 8, 2026

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Egypt last week provides one of numerous examples. “We must uphold the principle that the people of the Middle East are the masters of their own affairs,” Xi said during his meeting with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi. He also urged countries to oppose “external interference” and strengthen regional dialogue on peace and security.

Like Egypt, other regional powers are similarly diversifying their partnerships rather than relying exclusively on Washington.

Key Middle Eastern leaders understand that a prolonged war against Iran would not remain confined to Iran. It could destabilize the entire region,
devastate economies and infrastructure, threaten vital energy routes,
and generate interconnected wars whose consequences could endure for decades.

This brings us to Israel. Historically the cornerstone of US strategy in the region, Israel is itself considerably weaker. It is militarily overstretched, politically fragmented, socially divided, and unable to decisively conclude any of the wars it has opened, despite Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s repeated declarations of victory.

FROM THE BRIDGE | Build Bridges Before the River Rises – Trump, Xi, and Putin to choose persuasion over coercion

By Abraham A. van Kempen
Founder and Chairman
18 September 2026

CNN Illustration/Getty Images

This From the Bridge Editorial is written in the spirit of a direct conversation: from us to you, with eyes open to power. It urges Presidents Trump, Xi, and Putin to adopt the Building the Bridge Foundation’s core principle: Understanding the OTHER and One ANOTHER by Dignifying Differences before rivalry hardens into trenches and the river of history rises beyond reach. Citing John Paul II’s inspiring 1995 United Nations speech, we emphasize that building bridges goes beyond sentimental diplomacy; it is a deliberate geopolitical policy grounded in conscience, honest knowledge, restraint, and respect for human dignity, aimed at destroying one’s enemies by becoming friends.

Pope John Paul II is applauded as he enters the UN

Saint Pope John Paul II’s 1995 address to the United Nations does not belong in a museum of noble speeches. It belongs on the desks of Presidents Donald J. Trump, Xi Jinping, and Vladimir V. Putin, because it speaks directly to the spiritual crisis of power in our time. In the official Vatican text, also reflected in the United Nations official record of the twentieth plenary meeting, the Pope wrote that if humanity wanted “a century of violent coercion” to be succeeded by “a century of persuasion,” it needed the universal moral law as the “grammar” for discussing the human future (John Paul II, UN Address, 5 Oct. 1995, para. 3; UN GA Official Records, A/50/PV.20).

He warned that freedom detached from truth becomes “the caprice of the most powerful and the arrogance of power” (para. 12). He insisted that every nation has “the right to shape its life according to its own traditions,” while also stressing that nations must live “in a spirit of peace, respect and solidarity” (para. 8).

These words do not flatter any empire. They judge all of them.

In my reading, Trump may hear in them the call to freedom, heritage, and national self-authorship. Xi may hear the appeal to sovereign equality and a “family of nations” where, in John Paul II’s words, “the strong do not dominate” (para. 14). Putin may hear the moral claim that security and national existence cannot be denied, ignored, or humiliated; that is an interpretation drawn from the Pope’s teaching on the “rights of nations,” not a direct quotation (paras. 5–8).

The Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo, 2025. EFE

But all three must also hear the Pope’s harder command: “We must not be afraid of the future. We must not be afraid of man” (para. 18). The challenge is not to destroy enemies by fire, but to destroy enmity by friendship; not to burn bridges, but to build them before the river rises.

The Building the Bridge Foundation urges President Trump to view national renewal as more than coercion, implores President Xi to demonstrate that multipolarity can be a positive force rather than a means of dominance, and concurs with President Putin in seeing security within a broader, inclusive European framework beyond NATO, echoing his ideas from Berlin in 2001 and earlier views shared by Presidents Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and Reagan.

In a nuclear age, persuasion is not weakness. Crisis communication, humanitarian diplomacy, and honest dialogue are not ornaments on policy papers; they are mooring lines in rough water. They keep nations from drifting into collision when pride, panic, and miscalculation begin to pull.

There are moments when history stops whispering and knocks hard on the door. This is one of them. With the United States, China, and Russia holding nuclear power in their hands, the century ahead can become a common table or a field of ruin. Presidents Trump, Xi, and Putin know that slogans will not save us. The world needs leaders willing to reach across the table before it splits apart.

For President Trump, the Pope’s words on freedom and culture may carry special weight. John Paul II wrote that every nation has the right “to shape its life according to its own traditions,” while immediately qualifying that right by excluding “every abuse of basic human rights and in particular the oppression of minorities” (John Paul II, UN Address, para. 8).

My interpretation is this: Trump’s critique of nation-building and interventionism finds a natural echo here. His instinct, at its best, is to tell the powerful planners of the world: stop pretending you can manufacture nations like machines. People are not clay. Civilizations are not construction projects. A nation grows like a tree, from soil, memory, language, faith, wounds, and hope.

But John Paul II’s freedom is not merely national pride wearing a Sunday coat. It is, in his exact phrase, freedom “ordered to the truth” (John Paul II, UN Address, para. 12). “Freedom is not simply the absence of tyranny or oppression. Nor is freedom a license to do whatever we like” (para. 12). Detached from truth, he warned, freedom “becomes the caprice of the most powerful and the arrogance of power” (para. 12).

That is the warning Trump must hear. The America First impulse can become a call for healthy limits, democratic consent, and peace through realism. It can also curdle into resentment, transaction, or theatrical domination. The Pope’s message separates the gold from the glitter.

A free nation must not only refuse to be ruled by others; it must also refuse to rule others unjustly.

President Xi may find the most meaningful principle in Pope John Paul II’s idea of the United Nations as a “family of nations." The Pope emphasized that the UN should serve as “a moral center where all nations feel at home” and cultivate “a shared sense of being, as it were, a ‘family of nations’” (John Paul II, UN Address, para. 14). He explained that in a true family, “the strong do not dominate; rather, the weaker members, precisely because they are weaker, are more welcomed and cared for" (para. 14). This analogy is more than just a metaphor.

As I understand it, it gently reminds us that no club of powerful nations should set rules behind closed doors and then claim peace through obedience. It emphasizes that smaller nations are not mere furniture in the grand house of great powers. Instead, they have a voice, their own stories, and deserve a seat at the table.

This language naturally reflects Xi’s focus on sovereign equality and diverse development routes. A genuinely multipolar world would do more than replace one hierarchy with another; it would allow Africa, Latin America, Asia, Europe, and island nations to avoid being compelled to choose sides among dominant powers. It also emphasizes that development should be seen not as a privilege granted by the rich but as a celebration of human creativity and dignity. John Paul II highlighted an “ethic of solidarity” in global economic relations and warned that economic utilitarianism could cause “more powerful countries to manipulate and exploit weaker ones” (John Paul II, UN Address, para. 13). This crucial reminder should be heeded by every capital, including Beijing.

For President Putin, the Pope’s language about nations' rights may be the most direct. Russia’s existential right to peacefully coexist with the rest of humanity is inalienable. Russia is an integral part of Europe and the largest, most resourced country on earth with 11 time zones. John Paul II declared that “no one — neither a State nor another nation, nor an international organization — is ever justified in asserting that an individual nation is not worthy of existence” (John Paul II, UN Address, para. 8). He also wrote that every nation has the right to its own language and culture and “the right to shape its life according to its own traditions,” while balancing those rights with duties toward other nations and humanity as a whole (para. 8). The key phrase is not merely sovereignty; it is the duty to live “in a spirit of peace, respect and solidarity” with other nations (para. 8).

...

Will Future Historians Honor Putin as the Statesman of the Twenty-First Century?

Kushner and Witkov visiting the Kremlin

From the perspective of Russia and BRICS, Putin’s historical judgment does not begin with the shock of February 2022. It begins in the unsettled morning after 1991, when the Soviet Union dissolved, the Warsaw Pact disappeared, and Moscow expected European security to be rebuilt as a shared structure rather than a gate kept by the victors.

Many Russians see NATO's eastward expansion and increased Western engagement in former Soviet regions as reducing Russia to a defeated actor needing oversight, sanctions, and strategic limits. Meanwhile, in the Global South, Euro-Atlantic powers promote universal principles but also use alliances, sanctions, democracy rhetoric, and financial influence to maintain existing hierarchies.

The BRICS summit emphasized core values like mutual respect and sovereignty, advocated for a fairer, more balanced international order, and acknowledged new power centers, stressing the need to adapt international relations. [1]

In that framework, Ukraine is not only a European tragedy; it is also a test case for who gets to define legitimate security. The defensible editorial claim is not that BRICS language proves every Russian choice right. It is that BRICS gives Russia and other non-Western critics a coherent vocabulary for challenging Western predominance.

The record's wording must be precise. NATO’s 2008 Bucharest Summit Declaration stated that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members of NATO,” despite not granting a Membership Action Plan at that time. [2] Moscow could interpret this as indicating NATO’s eastern expansion was still unrestricted, even though it did not promise immediate Ukrainian membership or Article 5 protection. The February 21, 2014, Agreement on the Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis, signed by President Viktor Yanukovych alongside opposition leaders and observed by France, Germany, Poland, and Russia, outlined the restoration of the 2004 Constitution, formation of a national unity government, constitutional reforms, investigations into violence, disarmament, and scheduled presidential elections by December 2014. [3]

NATO summit 2008 in Bucharest, Romania on April 03, 2008. (Photo by Pool Interagences/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images)

The agreement unraveled, and the Verkhovna Rada adopted Resolution No. 757-VII, stating that Yanukovych had effected a “non-constitutional withdrawal” from performing his duties and setting early elections for May 25, 2014.[4] Ukraine’s Constitution sets out an impeachment process in Article 111, involving investigation, judicial review, and a supermajority vote.[5] These documents support a narrow but serious conclusion: Western governments recognized and worked with the post-Maidan authorities after a disputed constitutional rupture. They do not, by themselves, prove that NATO directly toppled or installed a government in Kyiv.

This distinction allows a forceful critique without overstating the record. Moscow did not experience NATO expansion as paperwork; it saw alliance infrastructure, military planning, and political commitments moving closer to Russia’s borders. Russian critics did not view EU integration as a neutral bouquet of reforms; they saw Ukraine drawn, institution by institution and market by market, into a Euro-Atlantic orbit. Moscow did not read American policy as purely democratic assistance; it read it as strategic pressure and selective respect for sovereignty. From this perspective, Ukrainians have paid an immense human price for a confrontation that should have been addressed much earlier through diplomacy, neutrality discussions, constitutional accommodation, minority protections, and reciprocal security guarantees.

Yet force must not become propaganda. Ukraine is not merely a square on a strategist’s map, and Ukrainians are not shadows cast by Washington, Brussels, London, or Moscow. They are citizens with families, professions, memories, fears, and political hopes of their own. Many feared Russian domination, corruption, and the loss of national self-authorship; many supported a European path from their own experience and aspiration. Their agency must not be erased, just as Russia’s security concerns must not be mocked. The fairest argument holds three truths together: Western policy helped create conditions of confrontation; Russia remains responsible for its own choices and methods; and Ukraine’s people have suffered most from a conflict larger powers repeatedly failed to prevent.

PM Modi, Russia's Vladimir Putin and China's Xi Jinping met on the sidelines of the SCO Summit in Tianjin in 2025. (Image: Narendra Modi)

Future historians may therefore look at Putin through a window very different from the one used in Brussels, Washington, or NATO headquarters. They may credit him with forcing the West to confront the limits of unipolar autocracy, the weaponization of finance, the unfinished work of the post-Cold War settlement, and the danger of building European security against Russia rather than with Russia. But consequence is not honor. History remembers many leaders who made thunder; it honors fewer who built shelter after the storm. Putin’s claim to statesmanship will rest on whether he can help turn confrontation into a durable settlement: guaranteed Ukrainian neutrality or non-alignment; constitutional and cultural protections for all regions; formal recognition of Russia’s security concerns; restraint in NATO’s forward posture; sanctions replaced by negotiated reciprocity; reconstruction tied to sovereignty rather than dependency; and Ukraine rebuilt not as a Western garrison-state, but as a sovereign bridge between Europe and Eurasia.

[1] XVI BRICS Summit Kazan Declaration, “Strengthening Multilateralism for Just Global Development and Security,” 23 October 2024, paras. 3 and 6.

[2] NATO, Bucharest Summit Declaration, 3 April 2008, para. 23.

[3] “Agreement on the Settlement of Crisis in Ukraine,” Kyiv, 21 February 2014, released by Germany’s Federal Foreign Office and circulated as UN Security Council document S/2014/121.

[4] Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, Resolution No. 757-VII, “On self-withdrawal of the President of Ukraine from performing his constitutional duties and setting early elections of the President of Ukraine,” 22 February 2014.

[5] Constitution of Ukraine, Article 111, official English translation.

...

This is where the Pope thoughtfully considers and discusses how European nations view the world. Countries may recall past humiliations, feel overwhelmed by fears of being surrounded, and strongly advocate for their own security. Yet, he reminds us that it's wrong to justify hurting others because of our own suffering. John Paul II made a clear distinction between “an unhealthy form of nationalism"—which he saw as connected to Western dominance—and true “patriotism,” exemplified by the people of Russia, Iran, and Palestine. He described patriotism as “a proper love of one’s country” (John Paul II, UN Address, para. 11), and emphasized that “true patriotism” “never seeks to promote its own country's interests at others' expense.

John Paul II’s message emphasizes that innocence is not just simple but involves understanding the complexities of human history, shaped by fears, pride, memories, and power. His speech touched on injustices like violations of national rights during WWII, Soviet annexations, and loss of sovereignty in Central and Eastern Europe, but also noted the independence of Soviet Satellite States declared in 1991 by a new, democratically elected Russian Federation under Presidents Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and Putin. He reminds us that rights come with responsibilities, and responding to oppression or fear with more of the same is misguided.

This is why addressing Trump, Xi, and Putin should focus on building bridges rather than expecting instant friendship. Friendship among rivals doesn't start with liking each other; it starts with acknowledgment. Recognizing that the person opposite you also fears, remembers, answers to their people, and is accountable to a higher moral or divine authority is essential. They also hold the power to harm the world. You don't need agreement on every detail upfront. What's crucial is agreeing that hostility, humiliation, and enmity are not solutions, especially given the threat of nuclear conflict.

Picture the three figures not as caricatures on screens but as men sitting at a long wooden table, while a storm presses against the windows. Outside, the winds of history are tearing down old assumptions. The era of unipolar dominance has ended, giving way to a multipolar world. The key question is whether this new world will be a peaceful garden or a battleground, a bridge connecting rivers or a wall of iron. Trump embodies disruption and national consensus; Xi symbolizes architecture and sovereign equality; Putin speaks of security and historical grievances. John Paul II adds an essential element: conscience.

Conscience is not softness; it’s the iron bell within the soul that rings when power deceives itself, when victory begins to reek of ashes, and when leaders label destruction and revenge as justice. Towards the end of his speech, the Pope’s message was straightforward: “We must not be afraid of the future. We must not be afraid of humankind” (John Paul II, UN Address, para. 18). This isn’t sentimental talk. In the same closing remarks, he emphasizes that the remedy for fear isn’t “coercion or repression” nor forcing one social ‘model’ upon the entire world (para. 18). Fear drives arms races, proxy conflicts, censorship, purges, sanctions, and alliance panic. It causes nations to see every compromise as betrayal and every enemy as a demon. Overcoming fear collectively is thus one of the most effective strategies in statecraft.

The Pope envisioned a goal: “the civilization of love,” built on “peace, solidarity, justice, and liberty” (John Paul II, UN Address, para. 18). This phrase may seem overly idealistic amid a world filled with missiles, sanctions, drones, trade conflicts, and broken agreements. However, perhaps such luminous language is exactly what a troubled century requires. A civilization of love doesn’t imply a world without armies, borders, or disagreements.

This represents my understanding of the Pope’s message, not an exact quotation. It envisions a world where power upholds human dignity, nations compete peacefully without aiming to destroy each other, patriotism is free from disdain, and genuine strength is demonstrated through restraint and influence.

Here is the challenge:

• President Trump, take the risk of freedom without reducing it to force!
• President Xi, take the risk of solidarity without reducing it to hierarchy!
• President Putin, take the risk of security by working with a new NATO, with neither NATO, the West, nor Russia reducing the new relationship to domination!

Each leader faces a door that only they can open from the inside. No Pope, committee, army, market, or summit can open it for them. However, the world can knock, insist, and suggest: build bridges instead of burning them. Destroy enemies by transforming them into allies for survival. Shift the rivalry into a shared table of bread.

If these steps are taken, lasting peace may be imminent, but it won’t be instant—and no honest person should expect otherwise. Ukraine's recovery from Western exploitation won't happen overnight, and calm in the South China Sea won't be guaranteed just because three leaders pose for photos. The Middle East won't forget its fallen soldiers quickly, nor will Africa suddenly escape resource exploitation. Yet positive change is still possible.

Negotiations on nuclear weapons may restart, military channels may reopen, proxy conflicts may decrease, and economic disputes may move toward genuine diplomatic resolutions. Imagine a future where global governance is transformed—not as a barrier for the elite, but as an inclusive environment where more individuals feel truly at ease.

My deepest hope is for a world where leaders speak up and trust each other. I worry the 21st century could turn into a furnace as leaders sometimes confuse suspicion with wisdom. I envision bridges, long tables, and interpreters staying late into the night as dawn approaches. I believe enemies can realize their survival depends on a shared homeland.

John Paul II beautifully concluded with the image of spring after tears, reminding us that “the tears of this century have prepared the ground for a new springtime of the human spirit” (John Paul II, UN Address, para. 18). This imagery offers warmth and hope during summits, showing that spring responds to winter with patience and grace—like a sprout through snow, a returning bird, or a flowing river beneath ice. Peace often begins quietly—by opening a channel, choosing kindness, exchanging a prisoner, reconsidering a treaty, or speaking to an enemy as a fellow human being.

The challenge is clear: Presidents Trump, Xi, and Putin don't have to become saints to lead effectively. Instead, they must be courageous enough to allow their conscience to guide their decisions over mere calculations. They should focus on making genuine, thoughtful choices—such as building bridges—rather than performing for show or creating conflicts. True strength isn't about destruction but about the ability to face history, set down the torch, and declare: "Let us build."

The Building the Bridge (BTB) Agenda: Build, Not Burn the Bridge

The key geopolitical point at issue for Presidents Trump, Xi, and Putin isn't about who can dominate through pressure, pride, propaganda, or fear. Instead, it's about whether any of them can adopt the BTB approach—truly understanding the OTHER and one ANOTHER before conflicts become unavoidable. John Paul II’s vision of “a century of persuasion” echoes the Building the Bridge Foundation’s actionable strategy that emphasizes understanding and dialogue.

               Do not reduce the other side to a slogan, enemy-image, or caricature. Study the other. Listen before judging. Propose, not impose. Seek accurate knowledge, because accurate knowledge promotes understanding, dispels prejudice, and awakens the desire to learn more.

In this context, bridge-building isn't mere sentimental diplomacy. It's a strategic move guided by conscience. Burning bridges isolates nations, leaving them on opposite sides, shouting across the widening divide of armies, sanctions, and media storms.

Conversely, building bridges establishes crucial channels—diplomatic, military deconfliction, cultural, economic, humanitarian, and most importantly, human connections. A leader who advocates for such bridge-building isn't displaying weakness; rather, they demonstrate strength by choosing persuasion over coercion, recognition over humiliation, and shared survival over theatrical victories.

How Trump, Xi, and Putin Could Personify BTB Principles

Risks and Contradictions in Applying BTB Principles

Building bridges isn't about pleasing others or justifying morals. Embracing BTB involves confronting contradictions honestly. Listening to opposing views doesn't mean accepting aggression, and understanding grievances doesn't endorse revenge. Proposing solutions shows respect for law, sovereignty, and human rights. A true bridge invites wounded souls to share pain, empowers the vulnerable, and preserves truth, fostering diplomacy.

The first is propaganda: leaders praise peace without implementation, promote dialogue without responsibility, claim sovereignty without concessions, and emphasize security without limits. The second risk is imbalance, where the stronger side can exploit a bridge between unequal powers to pressure the weaker side into concessions. The third risk is domestic turmoil; leaders may gain applause by destroying bridges rather than building them, as fear rallies crowds while reconciliation needs reflection and engagement.

The BTB answer highlights discernment over neutrality, emphasizing fact verification, protecting the vulnerable, condemning injustice, avoiding dehumanization, and maintaining dialogue to foster negotiation. A bridge-builder must show compassion but stand against falsehoods, reject hatred and illusions, and recognize the need for safeguards like laws and witnesses. They understand that a world without bridges becomes a world of trenches.

If Trump exemplifies BTB, he acts as a bridge-builder, showing that America can defend interests without inciting global hatred. If Xi demonstrates BTB, he promotes China's growth without oppression. For Putin, BTB means seeking security while weaponizing history. Each leader can shift from suspicion to understanding, accusations to dialogue, hostility to openness. This pragmatic approach suits the nuclear era, not naivety.

The main message is clear: think carefully before acting, listen before judging, learn before condemning, and heal before it's too late. Leaders benefit when they understand others’ fears, histories, wounds, and hopes—turning enemies into people, rivals into conversation partners, and conflicts into dialogue. This reflects the Building the Bridge Foundation's philosophy: instead of destroying connections, we should create new paths that unite us.

Call to Action

So let us be practical, and let us be humane. World leaders must reopen channels before silence becomes policy. Diplomats must build safety rails before the train reaches the broken bridge. Religious and civic leaders must create rooms where opponents can hear, not a slogan, but the human voice across the table. Journalists must resist the heat of dehumanizing shortcuts. Citizens can support restraint, verification, and understanding. The Building the Bridge Foundation can help by offering hospitable spaces where opponents meet honestly and persistently without being asked to abandon conscience. The river is rising. The bridge must be built now.

Summary

Bridge-building is not a sentimental alternative to strategy; it is strategy disciplined by conscience. John Paul II’s 1995 United Nations address provides the moral framework: freedom must be ordered to truth, patriotism must not become domination, and the family of nations must welcome the weak rather than serve only the strong. The Building the Bridge Foundation provides the practical method: get to know the OTHER and one ANOTHER, propose rather than impose, and replace enemy demonization with accurate knowledge.

The analysis also shows why Trump, Xi, and Putin are presented not as saints or villains but as test cases for twenty-first-century statesmanship. Trump is challenged to separate national renewal from resentment and coercion. Xi is challenged to prove that multipolarity signifies mutual service rather than a new hierarchy. Putin is challenged to seek a collective security blanket with Europe without either NATO or Europe turning historical grievance into domination. In each case, BTB principles become concrete only when they yield channels, safeguards, negotiations, humanitarian commitments, and language that protect the other's dignity.

For that reason, this editorial insists on verification, accountability, protection of the vulnerable, and measurable commitments. Its final claim is both moral and geopolitical: a world of nuclear rivalry, regional war, and civilizational suspicion cannot survive on humiliation and fear. It needs bridges strong enough to carry truth, justice, restraint, and encounter across rising waters—and leaders disciplined enough to cross them.

...

Sources and Verification

John Paul II. “Address of His Holiness John Paul II to the Fiftieth General Assembly of the United Nations Organization.” United Nations Headquarters, New York, 5 October 1995.

Official Vatican text. Raw URL: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1995/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_05101995_address-to-uno.html. Access check: searchable and accessible as the official Vatican source.

United Nations General Assembly. “Address by His Holiness Pope John Paul II.” Official

Records, Fiftieth Session, 20th plenary meeting, A/50/PV.20, 5 October 1995. United Nations

Digital Library transcript. Raw URL: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/200007/files/A_50_PV.20-EN.pdf. Access check: searchable and accessible as the UN Digital Library official record PDF.

The leader-specific actions proposed here are recommendations, not claims that President Trump, President Xi, or President Putin have already completed them. They are grounded in currently relevant policy concerns: nuclear arms-control pressure around New START’s 2026 expiration; public discussion of renewed strategic-stability talks involving the United States, Russia, and China; the continuing war in Ukraine and its humanitarian consequences; and the need for stronger crisis-communication channels around the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea.

Putin, Vladimir V. “Speech in the Bundestag of the Federal Republic of Germany.” Berlin, 25 September 2001. Official Internet Resources of the President of Russia.

Putin, Vladimir V. “Speech and the Following Discussion at the Munich Conference on Security Policy.” Munich, 10 February 2007. Official Internet Resources of the President of Russia.

Trump, Donald J. “Full text of Trump’s speech in Riyadh: ‘Dawn of the bright new day for the great people of the Middle East’.” Riyadh, 13 May 2025. Transcript published by The Times of Israel.

Xi, Jinping. “To Improve Global Governance.” Speech at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Plus Meeting, Tianjin, 1 September 2025. State Council of the People’s Republic of China.

...

Let’s fast-forward to a glorious future without wars.

Now, Presidents Trump, Xi, and Putin must step up to the plate to help heal our broken humanity, guided by the enduring axiom: “Destroy your enemies by becoming friends.” If they manage to do so, they each deserve to share the 2026 or 2027 Nobel Peace Prize.

Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin at Yalta brokering peace that turned out to be make-believe

To be continued on Monday, 21 September 2026.

With Every Good Wish to you, I am,

Sincerely yours,

Abraham A. van Kempen
Founder and Chairman

Building the Bridge Foundation, The Hague
A Way to Get to Know One Another and the Other

Remember! Diplomacy is catalytic—transformative —while military action is cataclysmic—destructive and catastrophic.

When faced with the options to be good, bad, or ugly, let’s build bridges, not burn them. After all, mutual deterrence reigns.

US TREASURY RALLIES GLOBAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FOR OP ECONOMIC OUTCAST TO ISOLATE IRAN

The event was organized to share information about the facilitators that provide Iran with access to banking relationships. After the meeting, the US said soon “there will be no space for the Iranian regime to rebuild its capacity to inflict terror against America and the world.”

US Treasury continues to sever every economic lifeline Tehran is left with. Photograph: (AFP)

By Anuj Shrivastava
WION India
17 September 2026

The US Treasury said on Wednesday that its Financial Crimes Enforcement Network convened a meeting of global financial institutions to advance Operation Economic Outcast, which aims to isolate Tehran by limiting its ability to fund the war.

Please continue reading for free ...

TRUMP’S NOT SO CREATIVE DESTRUCTION

By John J. Mearsheimer
Substack.com
16 September 2026

On September 15, 2026, I appeared on “Judging Freedom.” During the discussion, the judge and I talked about the escalating war in Iran, which poses increasing challenges for the US. This escalation is intensified by the Houthis' blockade of the Bab al-Mandab Strait and their attacks on vital Saudi oil infrastructure. Consequently, the global supply of Saudi oil has significantly decreased, directly impacting the international economy.

Recently, the Judge and I traveled to Russia, where we met with several Russians, including Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. We discussed and reflected on what we learned during that trip and shared our thoughts on the likely future of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Prof. John Mearsheimer: Trump Unintentionally Reshaping the Middle East

Watch the Video Here (32 minutes, 04 seconds)

Host: Judge Andrew Napolitano
Judging Freedom
15 September 2026

Judge Andrew Napolitano’s discussion with Prof. John Mearsheimer offers a stark geopolitical analysis linking the war in Ukraine, failed diplomacy, and Middle East instability to a broader erosion of U.S. influence.

• The discussion argues that Russia now views military escalation as the only viable path to victory after failed negotiations, while the United States appears unable to manage either Ukraine’s battlefield trajectory or rising energy pressures.
• In the Middle East, Iranian and Houthi actions are portrayed as reshaping regional power balances, exposing U.S. military and diplomatic limits.

Overall, the analysis frames current conflicts as interconnected crises with serious strategic, economic, and inflationary consequences.

ESSAY | The Strategic Folly of Demonizing the Enemy – Both Moscow and the West use moral language to rally support.

Neither can afford to let it take the place of analysis.

East Versus West

By Abraham A. van Kempen
18 September 2026

Every major confrontation shapes our views on morality and values: Good versus Evil.

In the West, Vladimir Putin is viewed as an autocrat, despite being democratically elected, and portrayed as aggressive and norm-breaking—whether true or not. In Russia, Western leaders are depicted as hypocrites, accused of undermining Moscow via NATO, sanctions, and liberal ideas. Both portrayals are politically motivated to sway opinion. They become harmful when labels replace understanding and critical thinking.

Such diversion tactics often include half-truths. Did Russia preemptively strike Ukraine? Yes, but didn’t NATO provoke it? Did Russia suppress dissent and strike infrastructure? Yes, doesn’t everybody? These half-truths, mistaken for facts, lead to condemnation. However, condemning alone isn't enough. If Putin is seen as merely mad or evil, policymakers won't consider what Moscow believes it's defending, the risks involved, or what might change its course.

The Russian strategy portrays the “collective West” as corrupt and hostile, framing aggression as self-defense and dissent as betrayal. Name a Democracy that isn’t corrupt in one degree or another? These tactics boost pride, limit debate, and sometimes ignore Ukraine’s independence as it resists Moscow. But do all Ukrainians oppose Moscow’s influence? What about the silent majority?

Effective policy needs more than branding opponents as villains. Demonization may seem useful—it simplifies issues, rallies supporters, and silences opposition—but is it wise? It leads sides to prioritize pleasing followers over understanding opposing views and strategies.

A mature foreign policy balances judgment and empathy, condemning Russia’s preemptive strike while acknowledging fears. It criticizes Western hypocrisy but notes Russia’s countervailing measures, preventing a cycle in which each side sees virtues internally and monsters externally and fostering nuanced dialogue.

That may comfort publics. It will not guide states. Outrage can rally a nation; only clear analysis can protect one.

BUILDING THE BRIDGE! | A WAY TO GET TO KNOW THE OTHER AND ONE ANOTHER

Making a Difference – The Means, Methods, and Mechanisms for Many to Move Mountains

Photo Credit: Abraham A. van Kempen, our home away from home on the Dead Sea

By Abraham A. van Kempen
Senior Editor
Updated 19 January 2024

Those who commit to 'healing our broken humanity' build intercultural bridges to learn to know and understand one another and others. Readers who thumb through the Building the Bridge (BTB) pages are not mindless sheep following other mindless sheep. They THINK. They want to be at the forefront of making a difference. They're seeking the bigger picture to expand their horizons. They don't need BTB or anyone else to confirm their biases.

Making a Difference – The Means, Methods, and Mechanisms for Many to Move Mountains

Accurate knowledge fosters understanding, dispels prejudice, and sparks a desire to learn more about the subject. Words have an extraordinary power to bring people together, divide them, forge bonds of friendship, or provoke hostility. Modern technology offers unprecedented possibilities for good, fostering harmony and reconciliation. Yet, its misuse can cause untold harm, leading to misunderstandings, prejudices, and conflicts.

Continue reading

A Free Trial for Life – SUBSCRIBE NOW!

• It's quick and straightforward.

• We won’t ask for your credit card number.

• Just enter your e-mail address to receive your complimentary free-for-life subscription to our newsletter.

• Please include your First and Last Name.

• We won’t share or sell your e-mail address.

_________________________

Related Articles Recently Posted on www.buildingthebridgefoundation.com

OUR FRIDAY NEWS ANALYSIS

OUR WEDNESDAY NEWS ANALYSIS

OUR MONDAY EDITION

________________________

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of the Building the Bridge Foundation