Our Friday News Analysis | What the World Reads Now!

EDITORIAL | Which Truth?

On 2 June 2022, I received a note from my friend, Macedonian Journalist Mr. Tome Dzamto:

                         “Dear Abraham,

               Here is my attempt to share our thoughts on current world events. My views may not capture the whole truth, but they aim to offer a different perspective. We Macedonians have faced catastrophes and social changes that shape our worldview.

               The war in Ukraine is an unprecedented tragedy for its people, with widespread repercussions across Europe and beyond.

               The responses from the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom are unreasonable. Aside from the attempts of French President Emmanuel Macron, they did not make significant efforts to address the situation in Ukraine through diplomacy.

               They launched a campaign to denigrate Russia and impose sanctions, even banning Tchaikovsky, while arming Ukraine. Peace cannot be achieved through military actions and sanctions.

               The Ukraine crisis began long before February 2022, originating from the civil war in Donbas and Crimea's annexation. If the West values freedom, democracy, and human rights, why didn’t it act decisively earlier?

               The West provides little historical background regarding the entire situation. Nothing occurs as a "thunderbolt from a clear sky" without justification. It is crucial to examine the transformations that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union and NATO's unjust expansion eastward.

               Understanding the historical relations between Russia and Ukraine is crucial. Many in the West see attempts to contextualize the conflict historically as outdated. What lies ahead? For those who have lost their lives, the situation is finalized; for refugees, the future is uncertain. Meanwhile, financial profits seem assured for the military-industrial complex and major Western economic organizations.

               This crisis, particularly affecting the Ukrainian and Russian populations, can and must be averted through diplomacy. While this may seem abstract, especially to those in the United States, urgent change is essential. If not, Ukraine's suffering will continue, and the world will move closer to an irretrievable abyss.

               The West should alter its narrative regarding the crisis. To pursue a peaceful and swift resolution, it should embrace diplomatic discourse rather than adopt military terminology.

               Indeed, there are many more questions and dilemmas, but I firmly believe that the crucial factor lies in the necessary changes within the "Western world." Blaming Putin today or Saddam yesterday is insufficient; it's time to clean up one's backyard.

               Sincerely,

               Tome

…

President Zelensky announced on world television that he would resign as Ukraine's president if all NATO countries accepted Ukraine as a bona fide NATO member state. Mr. Zelensky’s background is deeply steeped in theatrics, specifically comedy. When he presented his conditional resignation, he sensed that his NATO masters had already abandoned him – despite the fanfare in London and Paris – and would dismiss his ‘offer’ as incredulous.

Nonetheless, if I were President Trump, I would call the bluff and ‘take the deal,’ as long as NATO countries reaffirm Russia’s 2006 application to join NATO, following the adage ‘if you can’t beat them, join them.’

If Russia were to join NATO as the first step to becoming a full EU member—Russia is Europe's largest country with 11 different time zones—where would NATO’s enemy be? Let’s consider the possibility of NATO transforming into a global Peace Corps. In this scenario, the idea of a defense alliance seems redundant.

               “Mr. Trump, let’s explore a way to achieve a swift 24-hour—well, nearly—peace initiative together."

Soon after, the Kremlin should organize a reception inviting all European leaders to work together on multilateral trade across the continent. This event could be an excellent opportunity to enhance relationships and promote cooperation among all European nations!

My friends in Macedonia cherish the opportunity to sell their delicious apples and cherries to Moscow. It’s truly disheartening that their dreams were affected when the sanctions against Russia impacted the idea of non-stop flights from Skopje to Moscow.

Africa depends on Russia and Ukraine to feed the continent with wheat. Europe still relies on Russian oil and gas. European leaders have learned a harsh lesson. This time, the West must commit to paying a fair price for its oil and gas. It can no longer rely on divide-and-conquer tactics or regime changes.

The West must reflect on its neo-colonial obsessions, often masked as globalism. Acknowledging this can help pave the way for more genuine and equitable international relationships.

Our world truly deserves to break away from the West’s neo-colonial ambitions, a thought pattern and mindset that we define as follows:

• What is ours is ours.
• What is yours is ours also. (What belongs to you belongs to us.)
• It’s either our way or the highway. (It’s either our way or nothing.)
• If you’re not with us, you’re against us.
• If you’re against us, you’re dead meat. (If you oppose us, you’re finished.)

I, for one, relish that the Russian-Ukrainian conflict was also fought in the White House, the Oval Office, no less, WITH NO BLOODSHED.

Mr. Zelensky looked sharp in his custom-tailored military outfit, prepared for combat. He followed the script flawlessly, stressing the predictable Russophobia that disparages Russia, its people, and President Putin. Such chutzpah! To quote Matt Taibbi from his article below, “It takes a special kind of person to show up uninvited at the White House and accuse the president of being Putin’s pawn while simultaneously demanding continued billions in military support.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Trump and Mr. Vance were unaware of the surprises to come. But that's alright! Thankfully, no one bled to death in the Oval Office.

So, who emerges victorious? It’s neither Russia, the West, Ukraine, nor the White House. Zelensky left empty-handed. The White House was stuck with an unsigned agreement. Their European counterparts grapple with considerable ego setbacks as they must figure out how to recover the $billions they sank into the quagmire.

In the end, it's the American people who triumph. They won. Americans now enjoy a fresh sense of independence from Europe’s reliance on the United States. The Trump administration will step back from enforcing Euro-centric policies so that America can take care of its own.

Don't miss the revealing 50-minute video!

PIERS MORGAN | “RAPIDLY GROWING BLOODBATH!"
CAN TRUMP STILL BRING PEACE? FEAT JEFFREY SACHS VS FRANCIS FUKUYAMA

The big question remains: Is Trump finished with Zelensky?

View the Video Here (60 minutes, 14 seconds)

Piers Morgan Uncensored
4 March 2025

The notorious meeting between President Donald Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky created ripples worldwide, profoundly impacting Europe’s political elite.

The U.S. is pressuring the struggling nation to engage in negotiations, expecting the Ukrainian leader to display a positive demeanor for the media.

People across Europe are questioning whether they can trust the U.S. and are preparing for a future where the answer might be 'no.' In light of these significant events, Piers Morgan engages in insightful discussions with a diverse group of experts, including public policy analyst Professor Jeffrey Sachs, renowned author and political scientist Francis Fukuyama, the host of 'The Crucible,' Andrew Wilson, NATO Allied Land Command Commander Ben Hodges, 'Part of the Problem' podcast host Dave Smith, and veteran YouTuber Jake Broe. The big question remains: Is Trump finished with Zelensky?

00:00 - Introduction
01:00 - The world’s reaction to Trump’s Zelensky snub
02:05 - Professor Sachs returns to Uncensored (Pro-Trump)
11:55 - Should America withdraw from NATO?
13:21 - Professor Fukuyama joins Uncensored (Pro-Zelensky)
22:08 - Wilson, Smith, and Broe join Uncensored (Robust debate Pro-Trump versus Pro-Zelensky)
26:35 - Are we closer to a peace agreement after Friday?
28:44 - General Ben Hodges joins Uncensored (Pro-Zelensky)
55:15 - “You have the IQ of an Only Fans stripper!”

What is the Side of the Story that is Not Yet Decisive? Edited by Abraham A. van Kempen

MR. ZELENSKY COMES TO WASHINGTON: TRANSCRIPT

Volodymyr Zelensky portrays Triumph the Insult Comic Dog in an unforgettably obnoxious White House visit, effectively ensuring the end of U.S. aid. Foolish? Perhaps, but also "great television," as Trump described it.

“From the very beginning of the war, we’ve been alone.”

By Matt Taibbi
Substack.com
01 March 2025

Forget the WEF, the WTC, and the WHO. After Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky visits Washington today, the new reigning international body is WTF – ‘What the Fx!’ Did that [what happened in the Oval Office really] happen?

Zelensky’s much-anticipated meeting with Donald Trump and J.D. Vance on Friday afternoon resulted in one of the weirdest Oval Office scenes in history. What began as nervous diplomacy concluded in a Three Stooges pie fight, with the black-clad Ukrainian leader departing with two eyeholes covered in cream.

Trump and Vance did better but were caught off guard. Both expected Zelensky to sign a deal handing over $500 billion in rare earth development rights in exchange for American funding throughout the last three years of the war. It wasn't until early in the photo-op that they had been fooled.

This marked the beginning of the end of the Zelensky legend. He arrived in Washington as the tough-talking spokesperson for the “rules-based international order.” He departed like a costumed pre-teen returning home with an empty [no candy] trick-or-treat basket.

Zelensky’s visit to DC was not by invitation or didn’t appear to be. “I hear that he’s coming,” Trump said Wednesday. “Certainly, it’s fine with me if he wants.” Throughout the week, Trump informed the press that it would be a “big deal” if Zelensky signed a financial settlement granting the U.S. development rights. In retrospect, Trump might have done better to consider why exactly Zelensky was coming.

At the beginning of the presentation, Trump mentioned he’d spoken with Putin. “We’re going to try to bring this to a close,” he said. Then, looking at Zelensky, he added, “It’s something that you want and that he wants.” Zelensky didn’t interject but soon after began discussing American support, stating, “It’s essential” to “continue it.” About ten minutes later, Zelensky asserted that the United States “will not stop support.” He revisited this theme multiple times.

When reporters were allowed to ask questions, Trump was inquired about sending arms to Ukraine. He seemed to sense that something was happening and clarified his thoughts. “Yeah, sure,” he said regarding arms. “Hopefully, I won’t have to send very much because, ideally, we’ll get it wrapped up. We’re looking forward to finishing this quickly.”

Zelensky later stated, “We can’t just discuss a ceasefire endlessly. It won’t work.” He pointed out that Putin had violated agreements numerous times, so why trust him now? Meanwhile, Trump claimed that Putin would negotiate with Ukraine and the United States, which is fundamentally different from a deal solely with Ukraine. Zelensky scoffed at this, indicating he didn’t trust America (meaning Trump) to hold Putin accountable.

“25 times [Putin’s] broken cease-fire,” Zelensky said.

“He never broke to me,” snapped Trump, realizing the meeting had moved into deeper water.

It was clear that the two sides had fundamentally different understandings. Trump and Vance viewed the minerals deal as a precursor to establishing a security agreement with Putin. Meanwhile, Zelensky began to speak as if he was determined to continue fighting, with or without American support. One might call that brave, but the mood quickly soured once Trump and Vance realized they had invited a swarm of international media to witness Zelensky call them out on their home turf.

Incidentally, it’s easy to sympathize with the notion that Zelensky must do everything possible to prevent his country from being overrun. However, his best chance was to appeal to the sympathies of American voters. Instead, he did the opposite, doing everything short of urinating on the White House furniture.

In one particularly nasty exchange, when Trump spoke about cities in Ukraine being destroyed, Zelensky refuted this, stating that children were still attending school and “maybe it’s Putin, sharing this information that he destroyed us.” This was straight out of the “Donald Trump is advancing Russian disinformation” playbook.

Zelensky insisted early on, “We defend Europe,” because “all Europeans truly recognize that we are defending a line… That’s why they helped us.” In response, Trump pointed out that there is an “ocean” between us and Russia, which made it unreasonable for us to be paying so much more than Europe. “No, no,” Zelensky said, repeatedly denying that the U.S. provided more support than Europe.

Later, Zelensky stated, “You have a nice big ocean, so you don’t feel it now, but you’ll feel it in the future.” This was Zelensky’s faux-soldier act turned up to 11, warning about a threat whose gravity only a battle-scarred hero could comprehend, invoking the specter of Russia invading the United States.

At this, Trump lost his temper. It was a mix of everything: Zelensky continually interrupting him and Vance, claiming he was defending Europe and the United States, insisting Trump’s word was worthless, and behaving as if he was doing anything other than showing up for the umpteenth time to ask for more billions from the American taxpayer, only this time selling himself with rudeness instead of exaggerated theatrics.

“Don’t tell us how we’re going to feel. We’re trying to solve a problem. Don’t dictate our feelings,” Trump shouted. “You’re not in a position to do that… You don’t have the cards right now. With us, you start gaining cards. At this moment, you don’t.”

Zelensky is quite a character. “We’re not playing cards,” he stated with righteous conviction.

“You’re playing cards. You’re playing cards. You’re betting on the lives of millions. You’re risking World War III.”

“I’m very serious,” insisted Zelensky, dressed in his tailored war outfit. A reporter had previously asked if he owned a suit and, perplexingly, why he showed up at the White House in this attire. That seemed unnecessary at the time. In light of his pleas for seriousness, it doesn’t seem so. The exchange intensified when Vance interjected, questioning whether Zelensky had expressed gratitude. Zelensky replied that Vance was mistaken if he believed he could win an argument by “speaking very loudly about the war.”

Trump stepped before Vance as if ready to throw on his behalf. It was the scene you’d expect at the last call in a Midwestern hotel bar, not at the White House. “He’s not speaking loudly,” Trump shouted. “He’s not speaking loudly. Your country is in big trouble.”

Zelensky requested a moment to speak. Trump declined, stating, "You've done plenty of talking,” and launched into a critique of him.

We rarely witness raw presidential fury publicly, but Trump directed it at Zelensky with both barrels. At the same time, the cameras rolled, yelling over him as he attempted to protest. “You’re not winning. You’re not winning this. You have a damn good chance of making it, okay? Because of us.”

Incredibly, Zelensky used the next pause to up the ante yet again.

“Mr. President, we are staying in our country and staying strong,” he said. “From the very start of the war, we’ve been alone...”

Alone? "You haven’t been alone!” Trump shouted. “We gave you, through this ridiculous president, $350 billion for your military equipment. Your men are brave, but they had to use our military. If you didn’t have our military equipment, this war would’ve been over in two weeks!”

“In three days,” Zelensky quipped. “I heard it from Putin. In three days.”

During this peak lunacy moment of the visit, Zelensky demonstrated that he certainly has big brass ones, no matter what others might think of him. It takes a special kind of person to show up uninvited at the White House and accuse the president of being Putin’s pawn while simultaneously demanding continued billions in military support.

Trump now stepped back and collected himself long enough to summarize the scene. “I think it’s important for the American people to see what’s happening,” he said. He noted that Zelensky was declining a cease-fire and that reaching an agreement would now be challenging because “the attitudes have to change.”

A Ukrainian reporter nearly caused Trump to have an aneurysm after all this by asking what would happen if Putin broke the deal. “What?” Trump responded.

“She’s asking, what if Russia breaks the cease-fire,” Vance whispered.

“What, if anything?” Trump shouted. “What if a bomb drops on your head right now?”

Ultimately, Trump had to make the situation clear to Zelensky in no uncertain terms. "Make a deal, or we’re out,” he stated. “If we’re gone, you’ll have to handle it yourself."

Zelensky’s performance placed all the war’s key actors in a difficult position. Trump can no longer stay committed to Ukraine, even as a potential bargaining chip in negotiations, since Zelensky has orchestrated it so that Trump would appear to have surrendered to his suitless “ally” if he does. Meanwhile, if Trump withdraws, it will shift the responsibility to institutions like the IMF (which recently agreed to send $400 million to Ukraine) and the consolidated European powers (leaders from France, Poland, Lithuania, Ireland, Sweden, and other nations pledged continued support for Zelensky right after the meeting) to serve as Ukraine’s new backstop.

Foreign leaders and Democrats will now argue that Trump has effectively sided with Vladimir Putin (many are already making this claim), possibly in an attempt to shame Trump back into full support of the war. I don’t see that happening, which leaves two eventual outcomes.

In one scenario, Ukraine would indeed “fight it out” with Russia alone, but it’s hard to see that lasting long. On the other, European money, weapons, and personnel would fill the oversized footprint of Joe Biden’s proxy war plan. However, it wouldn’t be the same. Without America on the other side of the conflict, Russian attacks on European territories would likely increase, NATO or not. This would follow the same crazy pattern of the last three years, where it often appeared that Western politicians and military leaders risked World War III in the short term, hoping to solidify the alliance in the long term.

Whether on his own or at the behest of all those Macrons, Harrises, and Kristerssons who had statements of support ready for the media this afternoon, Zelensky, through his gauntlet-throwing performance, essentially dared Trump to walk away from Ukraine and NATO. Anyone who thinks he won’t do it is delusional. I get the sense that there are European officials who still doubt it. Talk about sitting on bad cards. This was going all in with nothing at all.

Once again, neoliberal bureaucrats appear determined to extract unnecessary war and suffering from the jaws of resolution. What a development! Things are likely to fall apart quickly. In the meantime, please read the transcript below, as the intensity of the scene is difficult to understand if you don’t follow it from beginning to end:

TRUMP: Well, thank you very much. It’s an honor to have President Zelensky of Ukraine here, and we’ve been working very hard and closely together. We’ve known each other for quite some time and dealt well with one another. We had a brief negotiation spat, but I think that turned out great for both countries and, in fact, for the world beyond just those two. We have a very fair deal and look forward to diving in and working on obtaining some of the rare earth materials. This means making a significant commitment from the United States, and we appreciate collaborating with you immensely. We will continue to do so. We’ve had some very productive discussions with Russia. I spoke with President Putin, and we’re aiming to bring this to a close.

Please keep reading the full transcript... or watch the full television 50-minute coverage below.

It’s something both you and he want. We’ll need to negotiate a deal, but we’ve established the framework for one, and I believe something can be achieved. The main issue is the number of soldiers—at this point, it’s mainly about that. Both sides are losing thousands of soldiers. We’re losing a significant number and want it to stop; we also wish to have funding redirected towards different uses, such as rebuilding efforts. We’re going to work very hard on this. However, we’ve had many productive conversations. I should mention that until we stepped in, the Biden administration hadn’t communicated with Russia. They didn’t reach out to anyone and allowed this situation to persist. And I’ll say it here: I’ve repeated it numerous times: if I were President, this war would have never happened.

We could have negotiated a deal for you without you having to go through what you’ve experienced…

THE COMPLETE COVERAGE ON WORLD TELEVISION | TRUMP AND ZELENSKY CLASH IN THE OVAL OFFICE

In front of the cameras, both Zelensky and Trump heightened their rhetoric to sway public opinion and avoid showing weakness.

View the Video Here (50 minutes, 22 seconds)

By Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
01 March 2025

The meeting between Trump and Zelensky shows why sensitive diplomatic talks need privacy. Leaders often elevate rhetoric in press conferences to influence public opinion and avoid looking weak. This focus on perception highlights a major diplomatic issue. For instance, Europeans have avoided engaging with Russia for three years, fearing it would legitimize Putin and overlook ways to reduce nuclear war risks. This narrative control in international relations emphasizes the importance of safeguarding diplomatic efforts.

The Trump-Zelensky meeting was sensitive, lacking security guarantees before the press conference, which was critical for public support. The meeting sought to finalize an agreement for US control over Ukraine’s resources, but the document was unclear. Trump expected compliance from Zelensky due to US leverage, while Zelensky pressured Trump for security guarantees in return for resources.

A security guarantee could involve the US in a direct war with Russia if a peace agreement fails. While it may deter Russia from ending the ceasefire, it could also encourage Ukraine to resume fighting, drawing the US into aiding Ukraine in reclaiming lost territories. This could lead to World War III and a potential nuclear exchange.

Macron and Starmer visited to secure US guarantees and prevent a split from Ukraine. Europe needs US military support for troop deployment. They likely flattered Trump with incentives before Zelensky’s visit. However, Trump’s vanity and greed were counterproductive, as he acknowledges the war is lost and nuclear risks rise without peace talks.

This confrontation may push Zelensky to abandon his delusions. The Biden administration and Europe have misled Ukraine for over a decade, contributing to its decline. Trump and Vance appear confused by Zelensky’s inaction amid devastation. NATO membership promises from Europe support dangerous fantasies. NATO has lost the proxy war in Ukraine, leaving no reasonable private solutions available.

COL. DOUGLAS MACGREGOR: EGYPT READY FOR WAR WITH ISRAEL.

View the Video Here (31 minutes, 30 seconds)

Judge Andrew Napolitano - Judging Freedom
3 March 2025

PROF. JOHN MEARSHEIMER: WHAT I'D TELL LAVROV

View the Video Here (25 minutes, 43 seconds)

Judge Andrew Napolitano - Judging Freedom
4 March 2025

PROF. JEFFREY SACHS: TRUMP SAYING GOOD NIGHT TO NATO

View the Video Here (31 minutes, 19 seconds)

Judge Andrew Napolitano - Judging Freedom
4 March 2025

PROF. GLENN DIESEN: PUTIN'S ENDGAME IN UKRAINE

View the Video Here (23 minutes, 37 seconds)

Judge Andrew Napolitano - Judging Freedom
4 March 2025

LARRY JOHNSON: CAN ZELENSKYY LAST MUCH LONGER?

View the Video Here (27 minutes, 23 seconds)

Judge Andrew Napolitano - Judging Freedom
4 March 2025

AMB. CHAS FREEMAN: US ARMS TO UKRAINE HALTED!

View the Video Here (27 minutes, 02 seconds)

Judge Andrew Napolitano - Judging Freedom
4 March 2025

PROF. GILBERT DOCTOROW: TRUMP OUTFOXES EUROPE

View the Video Here (22 minutes, 26 seconds)

Judge Andrews Napolitano - Judging Freedom
4 March 2025

MAX BLUMENTHAL: NETANYAHU SABOTAGES CEASEFIRE.

View the Video Here (2 minutes, 57 seconds)

Judge Andrew Napolitano - Judging Freedom
3 March 2025

TO THE PEOPLE OF UKRAINE | WAR AND PEACE IN UKRAINE

In 2020, host Diana Panchenko earned the title of Ukraine’s “Journalist of the Year” and was recognized as one of the nation’s top 10 most influential women.

View the Video Here (1 hour, 49 minutes, 22 seconds)

Guests: John Mearsheimer, Glenn Diesen, and Pavel Shchelin, with Diana Panchenko

By Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
27 February 2025

I was delighted to participate in a thoughtful discussion about a Ukrainian political program focused on the pressing topic of “War and Peace."

We explored essential questions like why the war started and how it can ultimately end.

The conflict traces back to the Western-backed coup in 2014, which unfortunately disrupted Ukraine's neutrality. Achieving peace will inevitably involve restoring that neutrality.

While a problematic peace may involve no NATO membership, painful territorial adjustments, and a lack of security guarantees, it could still represent the most hopeful path forward.

FYODOR LUKYANOV: HERE’S THE APOCALYPTIC TRUMP CHOICE FACING THE EU

The bloc’s strategy for Ukraine will collapse without the US.

Britain’s Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer (L), welcomes Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky to 10 Downing Street on March 1, 2025, in London, England. © Peter Nicholls / Getty Images

By Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and research director of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

Russia in Global AffairsRGA on Telegram

Annotated by Abraham A. van Kempen

Friday night’s events at the White House, involving Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, have put Western Europe in a tough spot. Many regional leaders, from moderate to intense skeptics of US President Donald Trump, have sought to maintain the transatlantic alliance. They urged Washington to resolve the Ukraine conflict in line with European interests. However, the public split between Zelensky and Trump has eliminated that chance.

Zelensky has compelled the US to clarify its role: Washington is a mediator aiming to end escalation, not a combatant. This contrasts with the prior stance of leading a coalition against Russia to defend Ukraine. The message is clear – US support for Kyiv is a tool in a larger geopolitical game, not a matter of principle.

Western Europe’s Limited Options

The EU has pledged support for Ukraine but lacks the resources to replace the U.S. as its main backer. However, changing this stance is problematic. The costs of defeating Russia are high, and a sudden policy shift would require Western European leaders to justify their previous actions. In an unstable EU, such a reversal could empower political opponents of the bloc's leaders.

Western Europe’s post-Cold War reliance on moral arguments as a political tool, both internally and externally, keeps it on its current path. Unlike states, the EU is a complex bloc of over two dozen countries prone to bureaucracy. Decisions are slow; coordination is flawed, and mechanisms often malfunction.

Read more
Fyodor Lukyanov: The last battle of the Cold War just took place in Germany

Brussels long sought to turn this weakness into ideological strength. Despite its complexity, the EU aimed to represent a new form of cooperative politics – a model for the world. However, this model has failed.

It may only persist in the culturally uniform core of Western Europe, and even this is questionable. The world has progressed, but the inefficiencies continue to exist. Therefore, the aspiration for a self-reliant, independent "Europe" that can operate without American guidance is unattainable.

Adapting to Washington’s New Reality

Western Europe might weather the turbulence of another Trump presidency, as it did during his initial term. However, this situation extends beyond Trump. The change in US policy signifies a more profound political realignment, guaranteeing that a return to the golden era of the 1990s and early 2000s is unattainable.

Ukraine drives these changes. The EU cannot wait. Leaders must swiftly respond, aiming for unity with Washington while adapting to new US policies. This is challenging, especially economically, as modern America prioritizes its interests over European needs.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz's upcoming visit to Washington suggests Western Europe’s shifting stance. Currently a hardliner, he may soon align with Washington’s new direction.

The alternative: Europe vs. America?

Another possibility is that the EU could unify against Trump’s America. However, due to weak leadership and deep divisions, this seems unlikely. While Ukraine could rally European solidarity, public sentiment in many EU nations makes this improbable.

Washington's interference in European politics by supporting Trump-aligned populist movements could backfire. Western European elites might consolidate, while nationalists, who oppose external influence, may struggle to adapt.

Read more
How Macron became the face of Western Europe’s submission

The current situation reveals a “collective West” crisis, threatening Western unity. The political West is a recent construct, primarily emerging from the Cold War, often marked by tension between the Old World and New. In the 1940s and 1950s, despite rivalry with the Soviet Union, the US promoted dismantling European colonial empires to assert its dominance.

Western Europe’s diminishing global influence prompted deeper integration. Trump calls the European project a failure, but Washington has historically seen it as a means to unify Western politics and economics under American leadership. Now, the US views a strong, unified EU as less beneficial and openly expresses this shift.

If Western European leaders confront America, it will begin a new chapter, signaling the end of the Cold War framework that has shaped Western politics for decades.

Russia’s perspective

Russia sees no strategic value in a unified EU. The time when Moscow considered continental integration is gone. Experience, rather than time, has dispelled those illusions.

Moscow now pursues pragmatic opportunities. The West's internal struggles should be assessed by their tangible benefits. In this rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape, long-term strategies are irrelevant. The priority is to act decisively, exploit ongoing fractures, and secure Russia’s interests amid the changing global order.

Rossiyskaya Gazeta originally published this article, which has been translated and edited by the RT team.

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

Making a Difference – The Means, Methods, and Mechanism 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 in search of 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 Mechanism for Many to Move Mountains

Accurate knowledge promotes understanding, dispels prejudice, and awakens the desire to learn more. 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 do untold harm, leading to misunderstanding, prejudice, and conflict.

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