Our Friday News Analysis | What the World Reads Now!

Russia is Surrounded. Finland and Sweden joined (not shown on the global map as NATO member nations).

NATO EUROPEAN MEMBER STATES IN 2023. (The United States and Canada are not shown.)

Russia is Surrounded.

Russia is the largest country in Europe, with a population of approximately 146 million people. Without Russia, there is hardly a Europe.

NATO has fenced in the Russians since 1949. All NATO member states point their shared nuclear arsenals at Russia 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Who do the Russians trust? Not NATO.

What a business!

NATO is a profitable enterprise if you’re 1) a bank that finances the production of weapons, 2) in the Military-Industrial Complex that manufactures weapons, 3) in natural resources, i.e., oil, steel, and titanium that lubricates the war machine, 4) in mega construction conglomerates to rebuild countries obliterated by the war machine, and 5) information networks. Wars sell advertising.

The EU's rules-based approach still bears resemblance to its imperial past.

               What is ours is ours. What is yours is ours also.
               It’s either our way or the highway.
               If you don’t do it our way, you’re dead meat.

To Russians, NATO is a Death Star. From Russia’s perspective, NATO is the aggressor.

Reaction from President Vladimir Putin (Read ‘Vladimir Putin’s victory day speech, 9 May 2022.’):

               “In December [2021] last year … Russia called on the West to engage in honest discussion to find fair compromises that accounted for each other’s interests. All of this was in vain! They didn’t want to listen to us. This means that, in reality, they had entirely different plans, and we have seen this.

...

               Let me repeat.

               We observed the establishment of all this military infrastructure. We witnessed hundreds of foreign advisors beginning their work and the regular deliveries of modern weaponry from NATO countries. The danger increased with each passing day. Thus, Russia launched a preemptive attack against this aggression. It was necessary, timely, and the only option—the decision of a sovereign, strong, independent country.

…

                Russia will never reject love for our homeland, the truth, or the traditional values, customs, and heritage of our forebears, and respect for all nations and cultures.”

Editor's note: To free Europe from Nazi Germany, Russia lost 27 million of its citizens, who the Nazis slaughtered.

(Read John Mearsheimer on Putin's Ambitions After Nine Months of War – The realist American political scientist explains why Russia's move to annex four Ukrainian provinces isn't imperialism, by Isaac Chotiner, New Yorker Magazine, 17 November 2022)."

EDITORIAL | Are World Leaders Dumb, Stupid, Sociopaths, or Psychopaths, or All of the Above (Part 12)?

Click here for Part 1
Click here for Part 2
Click here for Part 3
Click here for Part 4
Click here for Part 5
Click here for Part 6
Click here for Part 7
Click here for Part 8
Click here for Part 9
Click here for Part 10
Click here for Part 11

By Abraham A. van Kempen
22 August 2025

Manufacturing Consent

President Putin and President Trump deserve the Nobel Peace Prize if they succeed in working together to create a lasting peace agreement. An agreement where all parties commit to avoiding aggression would be a major achievement for everyone involved. In my opinion, the current EU leadership, which is extending the war and using young Ukrainians as NATO cannon fodder, deserves to be held accountable and tried in a court like Nuremberg. They are destined for the gallows; that is, they will be democratically voted out of office. Good riddance!

These baboons are responsible for manufacturing and maintaining the Russian Hoax. They continue to spread rumors and lies about Russia, President Trump, and President Putin. They are warmongers, fueling fear to incite hatred—the most dangerous human reactions. Leaders like the British Prime Minister, the German Chancellor, the President of France, the President of the European Commission, the Secretary-General of NATO, and the President of Ukraine hold no valid positions. Their approval ratings are around twenty percent of their populations. In Ukraine, 67 percent of Ukrainians want a negotiated settlement now.

Western countries are gradually losing global influence. President Trump argues that rebuilding American strength requires distancing the U.S. from European governance, as the US-EU/NATO alliance has challenged Russia’s nuclear capabilities. Recent disclosures show Iran now has a nuclear arsenal, though hidden. With the threat of nuclear conflict looming, there is a universal desire to prevent disaster.

The shifting dynamics between Europe and the US can offer insights into potential developments in the Middle East. I look forward to sharing my thoughts on the Middle East, my home turf, in upcoming editions of the Friday News Analysis. Stay tuned!

Building bridges in international relations relies on time-tested sayings that reflect diplomacy, strategy, and human nature. These maxims have significantly influenced leaders and diplomats throughout history.

• The enemy of my enemy is my friend. This proverb highlights strategic alliances between parties sharing a common enemy, even if they are not natural allies.
• Destroy your enemy by becoming friends. This saying suggests reconciliation and friendship can disarm hostility more effectively than conflict, turning foes into allies.
• What comes around goes around, reminding us that actions have consequences in the interconnected world of international affairs.
• You reap what you sow. This maxim emphasizes that outcomes for states or individuals come from their actions or policies.
• If you dig a hole for someone, you'll fall into it yourself. This warns against harming others, as such plans can ultimately harm the person who plans them.

Ukraine: A Crossroads of Conflict and Opportunity

International Aid and Ukraine's Economic Situation

Between 2014 and 2023, forty nations provided Ukraine with hundreds of billions of euros in aid—an amount that surpasses its annual GDP of roughly $100.1 billion.

Outcomes Under President Zelensky

Despite substantial financial aid, Ukraine has encountered significant challenges:

1. The country has suffered a severe brain drain, with millions of citizens fleeing to the EU and Russia for safety.
2. In eastern Ukraine, a new neighbor has emerged as 86 percent of locals—mostly Ukrainian citizens with Russian roots—voted to join the Russian Federation.
3. The ongoing search for a stable energy supply has led to frequent power outages, leaving many people without heat and facing harsh conditions.
4. For every ten Ukrainian lives lost, Ukraine reports having taken one Russian casualty. This statistic highlights the heavy toll of the conflict on both sides, reminding us of the profound human cost involved.
5. Resistance to the government is increasing, as many Ukrainians refuse to act as NATO's cannon fodder or human shields.
6. Ukraine remains outside NATO and faces significant challenges on its path toward membership.
7. EU membership depends on joining NATO, but current members see this as a potentially risky step.

The War's Toll

In summary, the war has resulted in significant losses for Ukraine.

Alternative Paths for President Zelensky

President Zelensky had the opportunity to pursue different strategies.

1. He might have worked with the EU and the US to safeguard all Ukrainians, especially those of Russian descent, who feared for their safety as ASOV targeted suspected saboteurs and undesirables.
2. He could have teamed with Western allies to let Russia access Ukraine’s Black Sea ports like Odesa and keep shipping lanes open for Russian exports of oil, gas, and grain.
3. Further cooperation with the EU-US/NATO alliance could have created advanced pipelines for Russian energy into Ukraine and Central Europe.

      And what an economic feast it could have been for Ukraine, situated at the crossroads of East and West.

      Ukraine could have been a bridge, acting as a buffer between the EU, US, NATO members, and Russia, managing the flow of natural resources the EU needs.

      Ukraine could earn billions as a go-between for East and West.

Current Reality

Conflict has erupted between East and West over global hegemony, with Ukraine at the center, its citizens often used as cannon fodder or shields.

Envisioning Peace

A path to peace could be forged by:

1. Holding elections allows Ukrainians to peacefully determine whether to support President Zelensky and the current leadership, including radical ultra-nationalists, or to pursue a different direction. It provides an opportunity to empower the populace and honor their role in shaping their future.
2. Holding another referendum in recently annexed Russian territories to allow residents to decide their future.
3. Fostering international trade and socio-economic development through collaborative efforts.
4. Welcoming Russia, Europe’s largest country, as a member of the European Union.
5. Abolishing NATO, a group seen by many as unnecessary and expensive, could be a step toward more efficient international cooperation.

Ultimately, peace may be achieved not by defeating adversaries, but by turning them into allies – destroy your enemy by becoming friends (again).

Enjoy your weekend,

Sincerely

Abraham

BUILDING THE BRIDGE FOUNDATION, THE HAGUE
A Way of Getting to Know the Other and One Another 

ANATOL LIEVEN: SECURITY GUARANTEES AND CEASEFIRE ARE A DEAD END

Anatol Lieven shares his perspective, suggesting that security guarantees and ceasefires might not be the path forward. His insights reveal some of the challenges and complexities involved, but also remind us of the importance of continuous dialogue and understanding in these situations.

Watch the Video Here (31 minutes, 54 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
19 August 2025

Anatol Lieven is Director of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. He was formerly a professor at Georgetown University in Qatar and in the War Studies Department of King’s College London. He recently shared an insightful article titled "Why Trump gets it right on Ukraine peace," which you can read here: https://responsiblestatecraft.org/trump-ukraine-russia-agreement/.

Discussion on Ukraine Peace Negotiations and European Involvement

Opening Remarks

Glenn Diesen welcomes Anatol Lieven, director of the Eurasia program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, to discuss his article “Why Trump Gets It Right on Ukraine Peace.”

Trump’s Position on Ceasefire and Peace Efforts

Trump acknowledges that a past ceasefire has been ineffective, as Russia's leverage depends on its ground advances. Without progress, Russia loses bargaining power. He argues that a ceasefire ignoring the root causes would be unstable and likely to reignite, a point that is clear from the outset. Yet, months were lost, and many lives affected, by futile efforts toward such an unattainable ceasefire.

European Arguments and Ukraine's Neutrality

Some Europeans argue that Russia could demonstrate its commitment to peace by halting the attacks. Ukraine’s neutrality, meaning no NATO membership, is often seen as a result of Russian advances. Trump’s stance has shifted: he initially emphasized non-NATO status, territorial concessions, and security guarantees, then moved to support an unconditional ceasefire, and has now reverted to his initial points.

Security Guarantees and European Military Commitment

The concept of security guarantees remains vague. When specifics are proposed, military leaders, especially in the UK, note the impracticality of sustained troop commitments. For instance, maintaining a permanent brigade in Ukraine would require the whole British army, leaving NATO members elsewhere undefended. Alternatives, such as a smaller tripwire force, would require a US-backed guarantee, implying US involvement in the event of an attack—something the Biden administration rejects.

Putin’s Acceptance of European Forces

Trump suggests Putin might accept a European force in Ukraine, contradicting Russian statements. If true, it signals Russian pessimism, but skepticism remains about Trump’s view of Russia's position.

Managing Opposition: US and European Perspectives

Trump faces resistance from US politics, Europeans, and Ukraine’s leaders. Ukraine recently refused talks with Russia but now is engaging, with negotiations including territorial swaps becoming possible. It’s unclear if Trump’s strategy is intentional or inconsistent, but keeping options open may provide leverage in future bargaining.

Territorial Negotiations and Non-Negotiable Issues

Ukraine considers withdrawal from the entire Donbass region as potentially non-negotiable. Territory trading is complex, with ratios heavily favoring Russia. Russia might only concede if offered significant concessions, like dropping US support for a European force in Ukraine, which could prevent the force's formation.

Current Military Situation

Freezing front lines in Kherson and Zaporizhia is one thing, but surrendering key cities like Sloviansk and Kramatorsk is much harder for Ukraine. Russian advances may force further negotiations or demand changes, with Pokrovsk and Kostyantynivka threatened.

Sanctions and Western Leverage

Europe debates withholding sanctions relief until Russia meets peace terms, but an immediate, conditional suspension might be more effective. The slow progress of the war and uncertain outcomes could affect future negotiations.

European and Russian Demands

European demands include a ceasefire, reparations (up to $1 trillion), Russian withdrawal, and Ukraine's movement toward NATO. Some demands seem to aim for US involvement in a direct war with Russia to reinforce NATO.

Diplomatic Developments and European Involvement

Europeans seek U.S. support for Ukraine but face declining calls for Russian withdrawal due to advances and Trump’s initiatives. Using Russian assets for Ukraine’s reconstruction is possible, though reparations are unlikely. Europeans’ unrealistic demands risk emboldening Ukraine to hold unattainable positions.

Future of European Diplomacy

Recent meetings with European leaders supporting Ukraine show a shift: after years of refusing to negotiate with Russia, they are now engaging in dialogue. However, their rhetoric remains hostile, complicating relations. Political changes in France, Germany, or the UK could lead to different approaches.

Global Perspective and Western Narcissism

Western media portrays Russia as isolated, ignoring that most of the world hasn't sanctioned it. This Eurocentric view overlooks the West's declining influence.

Contradictions in European Policy

Europeans want to negotiate with Russia but avoid direct engagement. Proposals for summits clash with threats to arrest Putin, causing diplomatic tension and risking the process.

Washington and Moscow: The Decisive Negotiations

Historically, negotiations were led by Washington and Moscow, with Europe in a consultative role. Since Europe lacks concrete proposals, this pattern is likely to continue.

Prospects for Ending the Conflict

Some experts think peace needs battlefield resolution, but recent efforts like Trump’s talks with Putin show negotiations could work if key players align and convince Ukraine’s leaders.

Key Considerations for a Settlement

Ukraine probably won't give up Donbass unless Russia fully conquers it. US concessions like stopping NATO expansion, lifting sanctions, and securing Russian speakers' language rights could aid peace. Russian demands for Ukrainian disarmament are undefined, but restricting weapon supply might suffice.

European Limitations and Rhetoric

Europe’s maximalist demands contrast with its limited military and political influence. Without U.S. support, their leverage weakens, yet their rhetoric stays firm.

European Security Establishments: Paper Power

European security institutions focus on reports and laws, often detached from practical realities. This legislative dominance continues despite declining economic and political influence.

Conclusion

Despite the challenges we face, there’s a hopeful sense that diplomatic efforts and changing negotiation approaches could lead us toward peace. Of course, this depends on strong political will and practical compromises from the leading players. Together, with a shared commitment, a peaceful resolution feels like a reachable goal.

WHY TRUMP GETS IT RIGHT ON UKRAINE PEACE

In Alaska, he found reality: he is now embracing an agreement without demanding a ceasefire first, which would have never worked anyway.

Photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump shakes hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin, as they meet to negotiate for an end to the war in Ukraine, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, U.S., August 15, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo

By Anatol Lieven
Director of the Eurasia Program
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
17 AUGUST 2025

Most Western commentary on the Alaska summit criticizes President Trump for the wrong reason. The accusation is that by dropping his call for an unconditional ceasefire, Trump surrendered a key position and “aligned himself with Putin.”

This is nonsense. Trump aligned himself with reality, and the real charge is he should have done this from the start, saving six months of fruitless negotiations and lives. By emphasizing a prior ceasefire as his goal, Trump set himself up for the criticism he's now facing.

He is now entirely correct in saying he wants “to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire, which often do not hold up.”

From the outset of the negotiations, the Russian side made it clear that they wouldn’t agree to an unconditional ceasefire. This isn’t surprising, given that Russia relies heavily on military pressure and battlefield advances as its most powerful tools during negotiations.

Western analysts and European governments fail to recognize this, either due to a lack of understanding or a desire for the war to continue, hoping Russia will accept Ukrainian peace conditions. This makes sense only if Ukrainian demands were realistic and battlefield developments favored Ukraine. However, some Ukrainian demands are unacceptable to Moscow, and neither Ukraine nor the West can force Russia’s agreement, as the Russian army advances and Western support can't replenish Ukraine’s depleted forces.

The call for a ceasefire without a peace agreement is also contrary to the fundamental interests of Ukraine and Europe. Such a ceasefire would be extremely fragile, and even if (mostly) observed by the two sides, it would lead to a semi-frozen conflict at permanent risk of erupting again. This would make it vastly more difficult for Ukraine to carry out the reforms and economic development necessary for it even to begin to proceed towards European Union membership.

Understandably, NATO governments are distrustful of Moscow’s intentions. Still, if they are to take a practical and viable approach to peace negotiations, they must recognize that Russians are also distrustful of their intentions, and in part, with good reason. In international affairs — and history — there is also no such thing as a permanent and absolute security guarantee, as presently demanded by the Europeans.

Short of the complete defeat and subjugation of one side — which is out of the question in Russia’s case — the best that can realistically be hoped for is a combination of deterrents and incentives that will discourage a return to arms for a long time to come.

A semi-frozen conflict would also be destructive for the European continent as a whole. It would create a long-term risk of a return to war in Ukraine and European entanglement in the conflict, when long-term U.S. military support for Europe in these circumstances is no longer guaranteed.

On the other hand, as highlighted last week in Responsible Statecraft, the resulting need and hope for U.S. support would force the EU and European states into deeper and deeper dependence on an undependable U.S., resulting in more of the kind of economic surrender over tariffs and subservience to U.S.-agendas in the Middle East that we have seen in recent months. If continued, such humiliations will undermine the domestic prestige of European establishments and threaten civil peace and liberal democracy in ways that Moscow could never hope to achieve.

Worst of all, at least according to its latest statement, the so-called European “coalition of the willing” might try to use a ceasefire to insert a European military force into Ukraine, even without a comprehensive agreement:

“Ukraine must have robust and credible security guarantees to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity effectively. The Coalition of the Willing is ready to play an active role, including through plans by those willing to deploy a reassurance force once hostilities have ceased. No limitations should be placed on Ukraine’s armed forces or its cooperation with third countries. Russia could not have a veto against Ukraine‘s pathway to the EU and NATO.”

This is either insanity or duplicity because every European government (and the Biden administration) has already stated that they are not prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine. Even the Polish government ruled out sending troops to Ukraine. The British government has been foremost in proposing such a force — but has also said that it can only take place with a guaranteed U.S. “backstop” which the Trump administration has so far ruled out. Opinion polls show the European public deeply divided on the question of sending troops to Ukraine.

Are European governments prepared to send wholly inadequate numbers of their soldiers into the middle of an unsolved conflict? Or given that Russia has categorically ruled out accepting such a force as part of a peace settlement, is this a duplicitous way of trying to block an agreement?

The same applies to the statement that Ukraine’s path to NATO membership should remain open. Preventing this was a key part of Moscow’s motivation for launching this war. Insisting on this condition would therefore block a peace agreement — and yet at the same time be empty and hypocritical, given the stated and demonstrated refusal of NATO governments to go to war to defend Ukraine. Official statements about European states’ “unwavering solidarity” are pointless, since the Russians do not believe it, and extremely dangerous if the Ukrainians do believe it.

None of this should be taken as saying that all of Russia’s conditions are acceptable or should be accepted. Putin appears to have dropped one impossible demand, that Ukraine withdraw from the whole of Kherson and Zaporizhia provinces. The remaining Russian demand is for the Ukrainian army’s withdrawal from the part of Donetsk that it holds, in return for Russian withdrawal from much smaller parts of Kharkiv and other provinces.

Trump is reportedly advising the Ukrainian government to accept this. They are refusing to do so, which is understandable, but also mistaken if by accepting this, they can achieve a stable peace and Russian compromise in other areas — notably, in Moscow’s demand for Ukrainian “demilitarization.” For realistically speaking, the Ukrainian army seems to be in the process of losing this land anyway.

We will know much more about present Russian conditions when Trump meets with President Zelensky on Monday. Trump is engaged in a form of shuttle diplomacy between the two combatants, and the only reasonably unusual aspect of this is that it is the U.S. president who is undertaking this, rather than the secretary of state or national security adviser.

Is Trump wise to place the prestige of the U.S. presidency on the line in this way? We should at least give him credit for moral courage. It is also true, however, that while Putin is hardly the “global pariah” of Western political and media rhetoric, he is eager to restore relations with the U.S. and maintain them with Trump. Suppose a personal meeting with the American president and a ride in the presidential limousine are the price of reducing Russian demands on Ukraine. In that case, it is a price well worth paying.

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

LAWRENCE WILKERSON: DEFEATED & DIVIDED - NATO'S EXISTENTIAL CRISIS

Lawrence Wilkerson, a retired U.S. Army Colonel and former Chief of Staff to the Secretary of State, argues that NATO has lost effectiveness due to neglecting strategic planning and rationality. This decline renders NATO ineffective and may lead to internal divisions due to its inability to adapt and maintain security.

Watch the Video Here (52 minutes, 45 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
21 August 2025

Analysis of the Ukraine War and the Future of NATO

The conversation begins with a warm welcome to Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who gently clarifies a previous misunderstanding about his role, explaining that he served as the chief of staff to the US Secretary of State. He shares some of his past encounters with international leaders, creating a friendly and informative backdrop for the discussion about the ongoing phase of the war in Ukraine.

Defining the Conflict

The war in Ukraine is reaching a crucial stage, marked by intricate diplomatic efforts and a range of signals from Washington. Some folks view the conflict as a proxy war connected to broader European security concerns. In contrast, others view it as a direct conflict between Russia and Ukraine, with the US acting as a mediator. It’s widely understood that for peace to be possible, NATO expansion should be left out of negotiations, emphasizing that the issue isn’t just between the two sides but is rooted in the broader collapse of European security structures.

Complexity and Risks of the Situation

Wilkerson highlights how the situation is becoming increasingly challenging and complicated, and he's worried that unresolved tensions could escalate even further. He discusses the complex problem of "fighting two wars"—one perceived as a threat to NATO and another as a threat to Russian influence. While the Alaska Summit seemed to help everyone understand each other better, later European meetings seemed to undo much of that progress.

European Response and Leadership Challenges

European leaders are actively trying to shape US policies, knowing that Trump's decisions are often influenced by the last voice he hears. Wilkerson wonders how real progress can be achieved in such a complex and rapidly changing environment. The situation is even more challenging due to weak leadership in both the US and Europe, especially when compared to the experienced Russian leaders and the growing strength of the Russian military, backed by China and India.

Shifting Global Power

Wilkerson highlights a significant shift in power from the West to the East, placing China at the heart of this change. He suggests that efforts by the West to handle the Ukraine conflict through proxies haven't been as successful as hoped, and things are made even more complicated by US involvement in various global hotspots.

Weaponization of Institutions

This discussion sheds light on how liberal democracy and intelligence agencies such as the CIA, MI6, and Mossad have sometimes been used as tools, shaping crises from the Arctic to Southwest Asia. Today's technology makes it easier to spread propaganda, which can confuse the truth and make it harder to keep track of the facts.

Military Oversight and Accountability

Wilkerson shares how intelligence agencies now work closely with military direct action teams to sidestep congressional oversight. This collaborative approach has led to interventions in Latin America and other regions, sometimes occurring without full awareness or approval from top leadership.

Concerns Over Military Strategy

Recent public statements by US generals, like proposing an invasion of Russian territory, are seen as reckless and dangerous. These comments raise concerns about control and intentions among top leaders. Wilkerson uses historical examples to show how military leadership and accountability have declined since the first Gulf War.

Diplomacy and Trust Issues

The conversation examines how Trump’s positions appear to shift, and how he often says what different sides want to hear. This unpredictability makes diplomatic efforts more complicated and can shake people's trust. As a result, Russia will likely have a more decisive role in shaping the terms of any future peace agreement.

Security Guarantees and Buffer Zones

Wilkerson thoughtfully proposes some ways to boost confidence, like moving US troops further from Russia’s borders and establishing buffer zones protected by non-NATO forces. Still, there’s some doubt about whether current leaders are willing and truly understand the importance of these steps.

European Cohesion and Future Prospects

The discussion shifts to European unity, highlighting internal divisions and noting that important countries, such as Poland, haven't been part of the recent negotiations. Wilkerson foresees significant changes in European leadership and expects NATO to either decline or undergo a transformation, emphasizing the importance of Europe building its own security identity.

Maintaining Transatlantic Relations

Wilkerson emphasizes the importance of maintaining a strong bond across the Atlantic and encourages Europe to become more independent, both in defense and in the economy. He points out the reliance on US defense industries and gently urges for more effort to boost European strengths.

Conclusion

As the discussion comes to a close, there's a thoughtful reflection on the complex relationship between Europe and the US—sometimes marked by resentment, other times by dependence. Wilkerson shares his perspective that NATO is "a dead man walking" and explores various possibilities for Europe's security future. He emphasizes the importance of steadily developing a European security identity and reducing reliance on the US, advocating for a responsible and gradual approach.

EVARIST BARTOLO: 50 YEARS OF DECEIVING RUSSIA AND THE COLLAPSE OF PAN-EUROPEAN SECURITY

Prof. Glenn Diesen with Evarist Bartolo, Malta’s former Minister for European and Foreign Affairs.

Evarist Bartolo, Malta's former Minister for European and Foreign Affairs, shares his insights on the Helsinki Accords, which have reflected five decades of deception and contributed to the downfall of the pan-European security framework. Nevertheless, with the rise of a multipolar world, there’s an opportunity to breathe new life into a genuine Helsinki process, creating a more inclusive and secure European system for everyone.

Watch the Video Here (53 minutes, 46 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
10 July 2025

Pan-European Security Architecture: Historical Reflections and Contemporary Challenges

We welcome Everest Barlo, former Maltese foreign minister, to discuss European security. The talk focuses on the overlooked failure to establish a comprehensive, inclusive, and functional pan-European security architecture.

Background: The Post-Cold War Vision

After the Cold War, European leaders agreed on a security framework based on the Helsinki process and the Charter of Paris for a New Europe, initially including Russia. However, these plans were abandoned as NATO expanded, excluding Russia, the largest country in Europe in terms of population, territory, economy, and military power. This strategy, aiming for hegemonic peace, has since struggled, with Ukraine now at the heart of the ongoing conflict and doubts about NATO’s future.

The Helsinki Accords: Foundations and Realities

The Helsinki Accords of 1975 aimed to bridge the gap between the communist East and the capitalist West. However, an examination of decades of American and European diplomatic archives shows that many Western leaders viewed the process as more symbolic than meaningful. Some regarded it as a form of treacherous diplomacy, relying on gestures rather than real engagement.

Historical evidence, such as Churchill’s “Project Unthinkable” during World War II, suggests that Western powers often prepared for conflict with Russia, even when they were allied against a shared enemy. During the 19th and 20th centuries, Western acceptance of Russia generally hinged on its perceived weakness or defeat.

Intentions Behind the Helsinki Process

Confidential documents reveal that the United States prioritized NATO, followed by the European Union, while the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) played a lesser role. Leaders like Henry Kissinger viewed the Helsinki process primarily as a political spectacle, utilizing human rights and democracy strategically to erode the Soviet Union's influence. This strategy clashed with the Soviet perspective, which viewed the CSCE as an appropriate forum for security collaboration.

Failures of Inclusive Security

Scholars have observed that Western leaders never genuinely committed to the Helsinki Accords. The expansion of NATO, along with the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act, often served as a means to appease Russian concerns while advancing enlargement. Remarks from leaders such as Bill Clinton highlight the absence of binding security guarantees for Russia.

Persistent Divisions and Deceptive Diplomacy

Historical records from the 1990s indicate persistent American opposition to initiatives for a cooperative European security framework. Meetings between leaders like George Bush and Helmut Kohl demonstrate a clear intent to prevent Russia from being regarded as an equal partner. This approach of dual-track diplomacy—striking different tones with Russia and European allies—was widely employed.

NATO Enlargement and Its Impacts

Throughout the process, NATO continued to expand despite receiving intelligence warnings and protests from Russia. The attitude was often dismissive, with European and American leaders prioritizing maintaining dominance over fostering genuine partnership. Even proposals to address security concerns in Eastern Europe and the Baltic region through dialogue were dismissed in favor of NATO-focused solutions.

European Union, Strategic Autonomy, and American Influence

Within the European Union, attempts to build strategic autonomy are often weakened by deference to U.S. leadership. European diplomats note that any independent actions towards Russia are met with suspicion, and the EU frequently aligns with American positions—sometimes at the cost of its interests.

Decline of European Soft Power

As militarization grows, the EU’s long-standing social welfare system and its reputation for soft power and human rights leadership are deteriorating—the transition from a welfare state to a warfare state risks weakening the European social model.

Manipulation and Control in International Relations

Accounts from officials and diplomats expose how American administrations have employed various methods to sway European leaders, promoting compliance through targeted support and discreet intimidation. Efforts by neutral nations to preserve their independence often face pushback.

The Erosion of International Institutions

NATO’s expansion and actions in Yugoslavia, carried out without United Nations approval, highlight a tendency to favor exclusive alliances over multilateral cooperation. The “rules-based international order” supported by Western nations often involves creating alternative rules that benefit their interests.

Contemporary Challenges and Prospects

Russia's ongoing rejection of being considered an equal partner has led it to align more closely with other major Eurasian powers. In a multipolar world, shifting incentives suggest that exclusionary policies may strengthen rivals rather than diminishing them.

Conclusion: Lessons from History

There is an urgent need for a reality check and a move back to rational, cooperative negotiation. Only through sincere dialogue and equal partnership can Europe and its allies effectively tackle common challenges and prevent repeating past mistakes. As the discussion concludes, it becomes evident that history provides essential lessons—only if one is willing to learn from them.

JURIJ KOFNER: EUROPE ENTERS CENTURY OF HUMILIATION?

Jurij Kofner, an economist and economic policy advisor to the Alternative for Germany (AfD), discusses Germany's deindustrialization, economic decline, and broader socio-economic and political challenges threatening Europe's relevance.

Watch the Video Here (59 minutes, 43 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
20 August 2025

Contemporary Economic and Political Challenges in Europe

The discussion focuses on Germany and Europe's social, economic, and political challenges, featuring economist Yuri Kofner and host Glenn.

The Rise of Alternative Political Movements

Yuri Kofner is introduced as an advisor to Alternative for Deutschland (AfD), now Germany's most popular party according to recent polls. Despite this, significant resistance from political and media institutions persists, with some efforts to criminalize or ban the party—a trend seen in other European countries.

Socio-Economic and Security Crises

Over the past decade, Europe has faced social, economic, and security crises, causing a legitimacy crisis for its political system. Established parties and elites sideline growing public support parties.

Economic Decline and De-Industrialization

Germany faces severe de-industrialization, more drastic than wartime destruction. Industrial jobs have been lost in the hundreds of thousands, and production is 25% below trend. GDP growth has stagnated since 2019, with the economy approximately 20% below trend. These issues are widespread in Europe, but most severe in Germany.

Loss of Global Influence

Europe's political and strategic influence has waned. Unlike other global powers, the EU hasn't fostered major industrial, high-tech, or digital corporations. While Russia, China, and the US possess significant assets and sovereignty, Europe struggles to maintain its relevance.

Contributing Factors

Several factors are identified as contributing to Europe's decline:

• Liberal ideology promotes the end of geopolitical competition.
• Transition to a green economy, driven by isolated policymaking and ideological zeal.
• Mass immigration and declining birth rates among native Europeans are leading to demographic challenges.
• The war in Ukraine has resulted in increased expenditure and further reliance on American armaments and energy.

Financial Impact

Significant funding, such as the €850 billion “Rearm Europe” (now “Resilient Europe”), adds to the economic burden, with debt surpassing the pandemic recovery fund, raising sustainability concerns.

Technological Sovereignty and Digitalization

Technological autonomy is vital for political independence. Europe has failed to build competitive digital platforms, with only Yandex ranking among the top 20 global websites. This failure results from several factors.

• High energy costs and taxes discourage innovation and investment.
• Bureaucracy and regulatory burdens, such as the energy efficiency law and supply chain regulations.
• Inadequate education and training in IT and programming, compared to other countries like the United States and Russia.
• Dependence on American platforms, with EU regulations often exempting U.S. companies and stifling local innovation.

Policy Approaches and Government Incentives

Examples from South Korea and Russia demonstrate how targeted incentives foster skilled labor and technological growth. Policies like interest-free mortgages, tax breaks, and industry support have been effective.

Demographic Shifts and Skilled Labor Migration

Germany has lost over a million skilled workers since 2005, primarily working-age professionals, due to higher income prospects abroad and dissatisfaction with working conditions at home.

Changing Relationship with the United States

Europe's postwar relationship with the U.S. is evolving. Once reinforced by generous trade and defense policies, the shift to multipolarity has increased U.S. demands for loyalty and investment. Now, policies promote buying American energy and armaments, with plans potentially involving forced investment in U.S. bonds.

Military Spending and Industry Transformation

Recent German policy under Chancellor Merz ties military leadership to economic recovery; however, much of the spending benefits American firms due to foreign ownership. The emphasis on armaments over traditional manufacturing is considered misguided, worsened by high energy costs, taxes, and bureaucracy.

Mass Immigration and Social Integration

Mass immigration since 2015 has had mixed results. Some immigrants integrate well, but data show limited economic gains and a strain on social security. Promised solutions to skilled labor shortages haven't materialized.

Legitimacy and the Future of the European Union

There is a legitimacy crisis within the EU due to public dissatisfaction, economic burdens, regulatory changes, immigration, and a disconnect from citizens. These factors may lead to significant changes or even the dissolution of the EU in the future.

Conclusion

The conversation concludes with reflections on the potential for renewal, driven by rising public awareness and a hope for peaceful reform. Despite pessimism about hardships, there is an underlying optimism that change can occur if policy and leadership better align with the interests and realities of European citizens.

GUEST EDITORIAL | PEACE IN UKRAINE WILL DESTROY THE EU ESTABLISHMENT

The conclusion of the war will shake up the bloc just as much as the war itself, giving a boost to the overlooked New Right and helping them gain power.

European leaders attend a meeting between Vladimir Zelensky and Donald Trump at the White House. © Win McNamee / Getty Images

By Tarik Cyril Amar, a historian from Germany working at Koç University in Istanbul, focusing on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory

@tarikcyrilamartarikcyrilamar.substack.comtarikcyrilamar.com

20 Aug, 2025 16:36
HomeWorld News

The prospects for ending the Ukraine War have never been better, despite ongoing, albeit declining, Western European attempts to prolong it, except for the brief period of relative peace in spring 2022, which the West sabotaged. Since then, much water—or blood—has passed under that untraversed bridge.

Now, Russian and US presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump may persuade Zelensky's regime and NATO-EU Europe to accept that Russia is winning the war, and that later peace would only cause more unnecessary losses for Ukraine and its Western supporters.

Nothing, except death, is truly certain until it happens.

This peace we hope for is still in the – hopefully near – future. Still, it's natural for us to start thinking about what it might mean. Examining the 32 European countries that are part of NATO, the EU, or both, people typically focus on military readiness, foreign relations, and the economy (interestingly, in that order).

• How long will it take before the alarmist predictions of a Russian attack—possibly targeting the Baltics, Warsaw, Berlin, and maybe even Luxembourg—begin to fade?
• What will become of the rising, debt-fueled militarism?
• Will Europeans in NATO and the EU eventually find their way back to diplomacy and dialogue with Russia? And if so, when might that warm return happen? Will it be before they are overwhelmed by soaring energy costs, deindustrialization, and mounting public debt, or after?"

The answer depends on the development of domestic politics in key European states. The crucial question is the future of Europe’s rising New Right—parties often labeled as “right-populist,” “hard right,” or “far right.” Conversely, if the Ukraine War ends on Moscow’s terms, as Washington now supports, this peace will influence NATO-EU politics and the prospects for the New Right.

Read more
From Cold War to cold peace: What the Anchorage and White House meetings mean for the world

The New Right advance is notable in France, Germany, and the UK, where RN, Reform UK, and AfD lead polls. While similar to Spain and Austria, these countries are exceptional due to their economic and political influence.

The New Right surge isn't new; it has been building for two decades. Some see its triumph as certain: last spring, Politico acknowledged the longstanding effort to exclude it from government was over.

That turned out to be premature: In Austria, Germany, and France, the current governments still exclude the New Right. However, "premature" can also be "prophetic." Pressure from New Right parties has increased, not lessened. Current measures to ignore their popular support seem desperate and may soon fail.

Please continue reading 

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 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 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