Our Friday News Analysis | What the World Reads Now!

EDITORIAL | Think! The Next Revolution (Part 19)?

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
Click here for Part 12
Click here for Part 13
Click here for Part 14
Click here for Part 15
Click here for Part 16
Click here for Part 17
Click here for Part 18

By Abraham A. van Kempen
10 October 2025

THINK! The Next Real Revolution – Maybe!

Once Europe's turmoil subsides, when the dust settles, as the Collective West licks its wounds, 150 UN member states may celebrate President Vladimir Putin as the Statesman of the Century. I initially intended this week’s editorial to spotlight the core principles of his 2007 Munich speech, in which he proposed a peaceful, multipolar coexistence among all nations. Since Mr. Putin’s speech, the West sees multipolarity as a threat and has started to vilify and demonize him, calling him the new Hitler, with accusations and inflammatory rhetoric more provocative than the Russian Hoax in the US. Many in the Collective West were sucked into the so-called 'Empire of Lies,' which blinded them with deception. How long? Not long! Most Western Europeans and Americans will come out of the trance.

Starting next week, I will begin what might be the story of the century. But now, I’d like to introduce you to Alexander Markovics, the Charlie Kirk of Austria. Those of you who’ve read my work for 10 years or more know that I fear extremism. On the other hand, regardless, the pendulum always swings. The Building the Bridge geopolitical agenda is that we must interact with all global actors, the ‘good,’ but especially the ‘bad’ and ‘ugly.’

As I stated last week, we’ve reached a point in human history where mutual deterrence prevails. Mutual deterrence catalyzes diplomacy. So, let’s talk (unless you prefer a nuclear crater in your backyard).

Enjoy your weekend.

Abraham A. van Kempen
Senior Editor

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

GUEST EDITORIAL | WESTERN EUROPE IN THE MIDST OF CULTURAL SUICIDE: AN INTERVIEW WITH ALEXANDER MARKOVICS

Insights from Austria’s Identitarian Movement co-founder on Europe’s identity, geopolitics, and future directions.

Alexander Markovics. © Wikipedia

By Constantin von Hoffmeister, a political and cultural commentator from Germany, author of the books ‘MULTIPOLARITY!’ and ‘Esoteric Trumpism’, and director of Multipolar Press

Annotated by Abraham A. van Kempen

Austrian thinker Alexander Markovics discusses his departure from the Identitarian Movement, providing a sincere critique of identity politics and Austria’s liberal elite. He raises concerns about the limitations on free speech imposed by NGOs and global media, and suggests that Austria should consider leaving the EU. He supports strengthening ties with Russia and the BRICS countries.

Markovics envisions a hopeful future for Austria, where the country experiences a Christian revival and cultural renewal through a Danube Alliance. He calls on Europeans to engage more openly with Russia, viewing it as a trustworthy source of friendship and authenticity, offering an appealing alternative to Western institutions. Markovics’ beliefs are grounded in Christian traditionalism and are influenced by Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin’s Fourth Political Theory.

Markovics’ Intellectual Journey

Born in Vienna in 1991, Markovics gained prominence in the Identitarian Movement. He shifted from a single-issue focus to promoting Eurasian unity, European sovereignty, and resistance to what he calls the “West’s rule of deceit.” He is now secretary-general and press spokesman of the Suworow Institut, founded in 2014, which aims to foster Austrian-Russian dialogue and protect Europe’s cultural heritage from globalist erosion. Despite criticism from Austrian authorities, the Institut advocates for peace, cooperation, and a return to Europe’s spiritual roots.

Challenging the Status Quo

Markovics views genuine thinking as a threat to power, especially in a materialist and conformist society. His Christian-based, multipolar, New Right ideas threaten the technocratic elite but benefit ordinary people. He envisions Europe at a crossroads: either remain a Western satellite or reclaim a sovereign, culturally rich identity that links East and West.

Turning Point: Embracing Multipolarity

His interest in Russian history and exposure to Dugin’s works in the early 2010s led Markovics to question Western narratives, especially after the 2014 Maidan coup. He asserts that Western media and governments promote an “empire of lies” to sustain unipolar dominance and inhibit Russia-led multipolarity.

The Role of the Suworow Institut

The Suworow Institute serves as a cultural bridge and protector of European tradition, promoting dialogue between Europe and Russia while upholding conservative Christian values. Markovics notes Vienna’s historic role as a gateway to the East as vital for fostering reconciliation and opposing globalist influence.

Political Opposition and Media Critique

Markovics states that Austria's political elite and media marginalize his work, calling him and his colleagues “far-right,” “fascists,” or “Russian agents.” He claims these accusations are false, part of a smear campaign by globalist networks to silence dissent.

Geopolitical Analysis

The Decline of Western Unipolarity

Markovics argues that the West’s unipolar dominance has declined since the early 2000s, worsened by crises such as migration, financial collapse, and the Russia conflict. He sees hope in this shift, envisioning a new, multipolar order founded on cooperation and cultural rejuvenation.

East-West Confrontation as a Civilizational Clash

He views the Russia-West conflict as a broader clash of civilizations, not just over Ukraine. Markovics supports cultural dialogue and sees the Suwarow Institute’s mission as opposing Western homogenization.

Austria’s Neutrality and Future Alliances

Markovics states that Austria has abandoned neutrality, siding with the EU and NATO over its sovereignty. He urges Austria to pursue an independent foreign policy, align with the BRICS, and contribute to building a multipolar world.

The Role of Russian Culture

Markovics sees Russia as a guiding example as Europe needs to save itself, citing Russia’s resilience, spiritual traditions, and status as the “Third Rome' that can inspire a Christian-based European renaissance, contrasting Western postmodern consumerism.

Critique of Identity Politics and Liberal Orthodoxy

Markovics shares his thoughts about leaving the Identitarian Movement in 2017, expressing concerns that its emphasis was mainly on mass migration and didn't delve into broader geopolitical and philosophical topics. He also points out that accusations against dissenters—labelled as “wrong thinking”—are used as a way to silence those who challenge the liberal status quo.

Freedom of Speech and Political Landscape in Austria

He asserts that the standards of acceptable discourse within Europe are primarily determined by non-governmental organizations and media outlets financed by globalist interests. Markovics perceives the opposition Freedom Party (FPÖ) as possessing greater autonomy to scrutinize the establishment, particularly following their exclusion from government by a coalition of mainstream parties.

Austria’s Global Role

Markovics supports Austria’s departure from the EU and adopting a more assertive global stance, even if it means challenging Brussels and Washington. He favors closer ties with BRICS and rejects policies driven by Western interests.

Vision for 2035: An Austrian–Russian Alliance

Markovics envisions Austria forming a Danube Alliance with Russia and Central European nations following the collapse of the EU. He predicts Europe will experience a Christian revival, globalist ideas will decline, and Austria-Hungary will reemerge as a respected civilization. He also foresees globalist leaders being held accountable, ushering in a period of cooperation, cultural exchange, and shared values.

Message to Europeans

Markovics concludes by urging Europeans to engage with Russia openly, highlighting the value of connecting with its people and culture. He sees Russia as offering sincere friendship and authenticity, in contrast to what he considers the superficial promises of Western institutions.

CHAS FREEMAN: COALITION OF THE DELUDED PURSUES WAR WITH RUSSIA

In the 1990s, Ambassador Chas Freeman played a significant role in shaping Europe's security framework following the end of the Cold War, working closely with key leaders such as Mitterrand, Chirac, Kohl, Schröder, and Prodi. These leaders engaged in rational and constructive debates about European security. However, European political leadership has markedly declined in recent years. Currently, European security focuses less on the pursuit of indivisible security or reducing security competition and more on building coalitions to defeat Russia.

Freeman notes that European governments are mostly unstable, highlighting frequent leadership changes, such as France's fifth prime minister in two years, the breakdown of France's political system, Germany's efforts to maintain stability, and significant election outcomes in the Czech Republic. Much of Europe now resembles Italy's past, characterized by frequent leadership changes and political instability.

Watch the Video Here (47 minutes, 00 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
6 October 2025

European Security Challenges and Transatlantic Relations: An Interview with Ambassador Chas Freeman

Prof. Glenn Diesen, accompanied by Ambassador Chas Freeman, discusses the decline of European politics, security gaps, challenges in Ukraine and Russia, NATO's role, and transatlantic ties. He stresses the need for renewed diplomacy, dialogue with Russia, and a balanced defense transfer to Europe to tackle security and political crises.

Ambassador Chas Freeman is a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense (1993-1994). He has received distinguished public service awards for developing a NATO-centric European security framework following the end of the Cold War, as well as for reestablishing defense relations with China. Freeman also held the position of U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the periods of Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and served as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs during significant events, including Namibia's independence and the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola.

European Security and Political Instability

Ambassador Freeman addresses the difficulties Europe faces amid the Ukraine conflict, including manpower shortages, rising ultra-nationalism, and a shift away from effective diplomacy toward aggressive rhetoric. He notes rising skepticism in multiple European nations regarding current war strategies and cautions about a legitimacy crisis among political leaders caused by public alienation and frequent government shifts. Freeman advocates for renewed diplomatic initiatives, visionary leadership, and inclusive policies to enhance European security and stability.

Lack of Vision and Leadership in Europe

Ambassador Freeman highlights a worrying lack of a clear European strategy on key issues. There is no unified plan for relations with Russia, nor a plan for Ukraine's post-war future. The transatlantic bond is primarily contingent on the U.S., especially under President Trump, with minimal sincere dialogue. Europe is struggling to adapt to a world where the West is no longer the dominant force, particularly amid China's increasing economic influence.

Europe has not effectively responded to significant changes in West Asia, such as the Gaza conflict, nor has it revised its relationship with Israel significantly. The continent also has yet to reform global institutions, such as the UN and the World Trade Organization, which are currently in a state of decline. Overall, European leaders seem to be stuck in a state of inertia, confusion, and ambiguity, lacking both a clear vision and widespread public backing.

Internal Divisions and EU Dynamics

Freeman points out Hungary's opposition to Ukraine joining the EU, mainly due to worries about the linguistic and cultural rights of Hungarian-speaking Ukrainians. This concern echoes the ongoing civil conflict in Ukraine, which began in 2014. Viktor Orban's rejection of starting EU accession talks with Ukraine illustrates the complexities faced by the EU. Furthermore, the EU appears to be establishing its own counterpart to NATO, likely as a parallel organization, suggesting evolving strategic shifts.

NATO and Transatlantic Relations

Uncertainty remains about NATO’s future and its role in European security. Freeman reminisces about the 1990s, a time when European nations aligned with the US in NATO initiatives such as the Partnership for Peace. This program facilitated NATO’s expansion and promoted cooperative security, including engagement with Russia through structures such as the NATO-Russia Council. However, later developments led to further divisions and confusion regarding NATO’s objectives.

Freeman views NATO as a valuable organization for setting shared military standards and supporting joint transatlantic operations. He believes that European leadership in NATO might grow as the US scales back its commitments. The Pentagon is reportedly contemplating a new national defense strategy with a greater focus on the Western Hemisphere and countering China’s rise. However, Freeman observes that China’s economic development is expected to persist despite US efforts.

Recommendations for European Security Reform

If asked about reshaping European security, Freeman would favor giving Europe more responsibility for its self-defense and reducing the US’s involvement. He emphasizes the importance of renewing dialogue between Brussels and Moscow and seeking a peace in Ukraine that preserves its territorial integrity while addressing internal challenges such as poverty and corruption. He cautions against imposing top-down solutions for Europe and emphasizes the importance of consultation and a gradual transfer of responsibilities across the Atlantic.

Freeman discusses his contribution to developing ideas that led to the Partnership for Peace, highlighting U.S. interest in European approaches to managing issues that could prevent conflict and war.

US Objectives and European Perceptions

The US does not have a well-defined, unified approach to Europe. President Trump primarily views transatlantic relations through a business lens, focusing on financial contributions to joint security objectives. From a neoconservative standpoint, NATO is seen as a means to advance US interests. Freeman observes that triumphalism, Cold War nostalgia, and distrust of Russia have fueled NATO’s expansion, deepening the divide with Russia and resulting in limited dialogue and cooperation.

Using Finland as an example, Freeman argues that a country can keep a Western alignment while carefully maintaining positive relations with Russia. He highlights that European stability depends on involving all major powers in mutually agreed roles, similar to the historical repercussions of excluding Germany after World War I.

The Ukraine War and European Responses

Freeman highlights the problem of fighting “to the last Ukrainian,” emphasizing Ukraine’s severe manpower shortages. He mentions similar issues in Georgia and points out how ultra-nationalism in western Ukraine hinders peace efforts. Freeman notes that European leaders often react to unverified threats with aggressive rhetoric, even though they lack the military means to back such threats. He views this as a desperate act driven by illusions of victory and a quest for justification to prolong the conflict.

Some European leaders favor escalation, like conducting long-range strikes into Russia. However, these actions tend to strengthen Russian resolve and have little effect on the battlefield. Freeman dismisses this as “empty talk” and emphasizes the importance of adopting tough, realistic strategies to resolve the conflict.

Shifts in European Narratives and Diplomacy

Recent developments indicate a shifting mood across Europe, as countries such as Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Spain, and others show skepticism towards ongoing war efforts and aggressive stances. Freeman cautions against blaming the Baltics for diplomatic failures and emphasizes that genuine diplomacy relies on empathy and an understanding of different perspectives. He regrets the decline of diplomatic dialogue in favor of militaristic language, despite Europe’s historical strength in diplomacy.

Freeman notes that Russia, through its foreign ministry, has practiced diplomacy effectively, redirecting its focus toward China, India, the Middle East, and Africa as Europe has distanced itself. Europe has, in effect, disarmed itself diplomatically, and Freeman believes this situation cannot persist indefinitely.

Legitimacy Crisis and Public Alienation

The conflict in Ukraine and the ensuing economic downturn have led to a legitimacy crisis among European political elites. This is evident in countries like Romania, Moldova, Germany, and France, where frequent government changes indicate underlying instability. Freeman emphasizes that sound political judgment and the representation of various public perspectives are crucial for long-term governance.

This crisis extends beyond Europe, with comparable public distrust and political issues seen in the United States and Israel. Freeman argues that the current political crisis stems from inherent weaknesses rather than strengths, and overcoming it will necessitate substantial changes in leadership and approach.

Conclusion

Ambassador Freeman emphasizes the importance of renewed vision, leadership, and diplomatic efforts in Europe. The issues related to European security, transatlantic ties, and internal stability require careful discussion, practical strategies, and inclusive methods to ensure long-term peace and prosperity. The interview ends with thanks to Ambassador Freeman’s time and valuable insights.

PUTIN THE ARCHITECT: RUSSIA’S VISION FOR A POST-WESTERN WORLD

At Valdai, Moscow laid out not a challenge to the West, but a blueprint for a world of equals – where balance replaces control.

Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks at the plenary session of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club, October 2, 2025. © Sputnik/Mikhail Metzel

By Farhad Ibragimov – lecturer at the Faculty of Economics at RUDN University, visiting lecturer at the Institute of Social Sciences of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration

@farhadibragim

6 October 2025
HomeRussia & FSU

Each year, Vladimir Putin’s speech at the Valdai Discussion Club is more than just a policy update; it functions as a philosophical declaration. What began two decades ago as a discreet gathering of analysts and diplomats has evolved into Russia’s primary platform for articulating its worldview—and the type of global order it seeks to establish.

This year’s theme, “The Polycentric World: Instructions for Use,” signaled a move from theoretical discussion to practical guidance. During the four-hour Valdai session — the longest in history – Putin addressed not as a critic of the West but as a creator of an alternative global framework: one emphasizing balance over dominance, and cooperation over control.

From critique to construction

Over the last three years, Putin’s Valdai speeches have shown a clear shift—from criticizing to building. In 2022, he presented a stark choice: “Either we keep piling up problems that will crush us all, or we can work together to find solutions.” At that time, the emphasis was philosophical—on the inevitability of change and the failure of the unipolar illusion.

This year, the rhetoric shifted toward a more pragmatic approach. "In today’s multipolar world, harmony and balance can only be achieved through joint effort," Putin stated. The message was clear: Russia no longer advocates for multipolarity – it is actively constructing it. Groups like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) are no longer just talking points; they form the basis of a new global governance system that emphasizes shared sovereignty over imposed control.

In that sense, Putin’s Valdai speech served less as a commentary on global politics and more as a strategic outline. It situated Russia at the heart of a civilizational initiative—viewing Eurasia not merely as a bridge between East and West but as an autonomous center of growth, able to counterbalance power and provide a different vision of globalization from the Western approach.

Read more
Putin in Q&A at influential Valdai policy forum: As it happened

If the 2022 Valdai address depicted Eurasia as a network of trade routes and cooperation platforms, this year’s speech elevated it to a philosophical level. Putin then highlighted the achievements of the Eurasian Economic Union, the expanding influence of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and China’s One Belt, One Road initiative as signs of a developing system that is emerging beyond Western dominance.

By 2025, that vision had fully developed. Putin now describes Eurasia not just as a point where various projects intersect, but as a unique center of power— a civilizational realm with its own moral and strategic principles. He pointed out that the SCO originally started as a tool to resolve border disputes. Now, it has evolved into a trusted platform that focuses on security and development, serving as a model for Eurasia’s political framework.

This evolution reflects a more profound change: a transition from mere functional cooperation to a broader civilizational identity. Russia's perception of Eurasia has evolved from focusing on logistics and trade routes to envisioning a continent that establishes its own conditions for interacting with the global community.

Putin’s thoughts on the crisis of global institutions echoed a familiar theme, but with a significant twist. He contended that the issue isn’t the United Nations itself, which still holds great potential. Instead, the failure rests with the member nations responsible for maintaining unity, yet they have caused division.

This was not a call to dismantle the post-WWII order but to save it from those who have used it as a tool for dominance. Russia’s message is straightforward: international law and multilateralism remain viable, but only if they are liberated from Western control. In Putin’s view, the UN’s paralysis doesn’t show it’s irrelevant; instead, it highlights how much the West has deviated from the principles it once championed.

Gaza and the pragmatism of multipolarity

The Middle East, historically a key aspect of Russian diplomacy, again took center stage during Putin’s Valdai speech. When Iranian scholar Mohammad Marandi inquired about Gaza's future, the Russian president responded with a notably pragmatic stance: a mix of principles and practicality, tradition and adaptability.

Read more
How a low-key remark by Putin reveals a more profound economic shift

Putin reaffirmed Moscow's willingness to back any US proposal— including one from Donald Trump— if it genuinely fosters peace and aligns with the longstanding goal of two states coexisting peacefully. "Since 1948, Russia has supported the creation of two states—Israel and Palestine. That, in my view, is the key to a lasting solution," he stated.

He openly addressed the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, describing it as “a horrific chapter in modern history.” Quoting UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres—whom Putin, noting his pro-Western stance, called “a man with pro-Western sympathies”—he pointed out that Guterres had called Gaza “the world’s largest children’s cemetery.” By doing this, Putin cast Russia not as a biased player but as a supporter of international law and human dignity, emphasizing the country's preference for political over military solutions.

He also revisited the issue of governance in Gaza. Putin mentioned past proposals, including the idea of an international administration led by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, joking: “I once had coffee with him in pajamas – and he’s hardly known as a peacemaker.” This remark, delivered with typical irony, highlighted Moscow’s doubts about Western “mediation” efforts, which often repeat the conflict rather than resolve it.

Instead, Putin expressed Russia’s favored option: reestablishing control of Gaza with the Palestinian Authority led by President Mahmoud Abbas, as it is the only arrangement that can guarantee legitimacy and ongoing institutions. Notably, he emphasized that any plan must be approved by the Palestinians, including Hamas.

“The main question,” Putin said, “is how Palestine views this. We have contacts with Hamas, and both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority must support such an initiative.”

This ongoing stance—stretching from the Soviet Union’s 1947 endorsement of the UN partition plan to Russia’s current diplomatic policies—serves as the foundation of Moscow’s approach. The USSR supported the creation of Israel but also emphasized the Arab population’s right to self-determination. Today, Russia continues to balance these interests: ensuring Israel’s security while supporting Palestinians’ pursuit of statehood.

At the Valdai forum, Putin reaffirmed that stance, emphasizing that peace hinges more on actions than words. “What’s crucial isn’t what Israel announces publicly, but whether it acts according to the US president’s proposals,” he stated. This contrast—between speech and action—embodies Moscow’s perspective: a hopeful outlook rooted in diplomacy rather than illusions.

Read more
Putin offers peace to the West. Will it accept?

Putin’s concluding comment on Gaza was neither cynical nor idealistic. "If all these positive steps happen," he said, "the breakthrough could be meaningful." It serves as a reminder that Russia’s foreign policy, despite its assertiveness, still relies on negotiated solutions – not out of naivety but as a deliberate strategy.

The architecture of the New World

Ultimately, Putin’s Valdai speech outlined a clear and purposeful progression – from criticizing the decline of the unipolar system to advocating for a new, diverse framework of global power. Over time, his language has evolved from cautioning to actively shaping, shifting from opposition to taking ownership.

According to Moscow, multipolarity is not just a slogan but an inevitable result of history, stemming from cultural diversity and civilizations asserting themselves after being marginalized by Western dominance. Russia does not aim to dismantle the old system for its own benefit. Instead, it seeks to shift from hierarchical structures to a state of balance, fostering a global order based on mutual respect rather than coercion.

Within this framework, Eurasia transcends mere geography, serving as a civilizational bridge connecting East and West, North and South. In this view, balance signifies wisdom rather than weakness. Putin envisions Russia at the core of this space—not as a hegemon, but as an intermediary; not as a destroyer, but as an architect.

Russia's concept of multipolarity reflects a structure of mutual recognition rather than chaos among competing powers. In contrast, the old world clings to illusions of control; the plan for the new order is already laid out.

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

SCOTT RITTER: TOMAHAWKS, END OF NATO AND IMPENDING NUCLEAR WAR

Scott Ritter, a former Marine Major and Intelligence Officer, as well as a UN Weapons Inspector, points out how sending Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine and the expiration of the New START Treaty could make the situation more unstable. He warns that these actions, coupled with NATO’s weakening and Western miscalculations fueled by Russophobia, might unintentionally lead to a nuclear escalation. Ritter highlights the vital need for urgent arms control and peaceful coexistence efforts with Russia to help prevent such a tragic outcome.

Watch the Video Here (56 minutes, 20 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
7 October 2025

Arms Control, Tomahawk Missiles, and the Future of NATO: An Interview with Scott Ritter

Welcome back! We're excited to have Mr. Scott Ritter with us today. He's a former United States Marine, intelligence officer, and weapons inspector. We're going to delve into essential arms control topics, including the United States' thoughts on sending Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine and the possible extension of the New START Treaty—the last major nuclear agreement set to expire in February next year.

Russia’s approach in Ukraine focuses on wearing down the opposition and seeking reintegration rather than outright destruction, highlighting the strong cultural connections. As the New START Treaty nears its expiration, efforts to control nuclear arms are struggling, increasing the chances of a new arms race and possible misunderstandings. It’s vital to reassess policies to avoid a dangerous escalation urgently, and Europe should especially emphasize arms control and peaceful coexistence with Russia.

Tomahawk Missiles: Variants and Historical Context

The Tomahawk missile comes in three main variants: air-launched, sea-launched, and ground-launched. The ground-launched version was first deployed in Europe during the early 1980s as part of the US strategy to counter the Soviet Union’s SS-20 intermediate-range nuclear missiles. This deployment was considered destabilizing and raised the risk of nuclear conflict in Europe. President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev signed the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in December 1987. The treaty, which took effect in July 1988, led to the removal of these ground-launched missiles.

Despite the INF Treaty, air- and sea-launched Tomahawk missiles remained in use and played vital roles in conflicts such as the Gulf War and Desert Storm. The ground-launched variant was phased out until the Trump administration withdrew from the treaty in August 2019, citing Russian violations. This decision enabled the US to redeploy the ground-launched Tomahawk, which has since been tested and is now under consideration for export.

Tomahawk’s Capabilities and Limitations

The Tomahawk missile is esteemed for its standard payload and capacity to execute long-range, precise strikes. Nonetheless, questions concerning its effectiveness have arisen, as evidenced by operations in Syria and Iran, where numerous missiles were intercepted or failed to impact their intended targets. Engaging well-defended sites generally necessitates the deployment of multiple Tomahawks, and even then, success cannot be guaranteed.

The United States now intends to export the Tomahawk missile, with Japan and the Netherlands identified as principal recipients. The Netherlands has completed contractual agreements and performed operational testing, establishing it as a likely intermediary for the supply of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine via a NATO partner. The commencement of deliveries to the Netherlands is projected for 2028.

Strategic and Political Implications of Tomahawk Deployment in Ukraine

Providing Tomahawks to Ukraine signifies a significant escalation. Although the nuclear-capable version of the missile is not intended for export, it raises concerns due to its history as a deterrent and potential first-strike weapon. Russia has highlighted that deploying NATO's long-range missiles in Ukraine presents a strategic nightmare, as Ukraine’s proximity diminishes Russia’s strategic buffer zone.

According to Russian nuclear doctrine, any non-nuclear country authorized by a nuclear power to attack Russia could trigger a nuclear response. The operation of American Tomahawk missiles relies on US intelligence, satellite guidance, and encrypted communications, making independent Ukrainian deployment unlikely. Even simplified export versions are threatening because any launch directed at Russia could be perceived as a nuclear-capable strike.

Desperation and Misjudgment in Western Policy

The push to supply Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine originates from desperation, as Western leaders see sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and military efforts as ineffective against Russia. Influenced by Russophobia and misunderstandings about Russia's power, they believe Russia is bluffing and that assertive action could cause regime change. However, this is a dangerous error, as Russia has demonstrated resilience and strategic patience.

Western countries often grow frustrated because Russia’s cautious responses and restrained escalation are sometimes mistakenly seen as weakness. Western leaders often receive advice that is unrealistic, leading to poor decisions and accidental breaches of red lines.

The Collapse of NATO and the European Union

Europe finds itself in a fragile state, confronting economic, political, and military issues that endanger its stability. The U.S. appears reluctant to increase its engagement in Ukraine, leaving Europe to manage the consequences. Many significant European nations are facing difficulties, and the outlook for NATO or the EU to withstand this crisis looks bleak. The lack of unified procurement, training, leadership, and sufficient funding further aggravates the situation.

The only realistic alternative for European defense could be for individual countries to shift away from NATO and focus on their own security priorities. The notion of 30 nations collaborating as a unified group is growing less practical, and the likelihood of NATO breaking apart rises as Europe becomes more fragmented.

Russian Strategy and the War in Ukraine

Russia’s military strategy in Ukraine prioritizes attrition rather than decapitation strikes. This approach is influenced by the strong cultural and historical bonds among Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine—the so-called “three sisters.” Russia's goal is not to annihilate Ukraine but to bring it back into the Slavic fold, emphasizing the nationalist government rather than the entire country.

The New START Treaty and Nuclear Arms Control

The New START Treaty, which limits nuclear arsenals for both nations, is set to expire on February 5th and will not be renewed under current circumstances. Russia refuses to engage in strategic arms control talks with a country seeking its strategic defeat. Inspection and data exchange processes under the treaty have stopped, and recent US administrative changes have further hindered any potential negotiations.

Acknowledging limited progress, President Putin suggested a one-year moratorium to preserve current nuclear limits, aiming to facilitate diplomatic talks. Nevertheless, challenges arise in engaging China and other NATO nuclear members in negotiations. The deployment of Tomahawks to Ukraine could effectively derail any upcoming arms control discussions.

The expiration of New START could ignite a renewed nuclear arms race, with both nations increasing their deployed warheads. Russia has modernized its arsenal, while the US faces aging systems. Starting an arms race from a position of weakness may result in risky decisions and a higher chance of miscalculation.

Conclusion: The Urgency of Arms Control and Peace

The current situation is dangerous, with significant risks of escalation, misjudgment, and nuclear war. It’s crucial to rethink the goal of forcing Russia’s strategic defeat to prevent disaster. Europe should acknowledge its limits with Ukraine and focus on arms control and peaceful coexistence with Russia. Only by ending the war in Russia’s favor and abandoning destabilizing tactics can nuclear deterrence be modernized to meet today’s realities and avoid catastrophe.

WHY WESTERN EUROPE NEEDS RUSSIA AS ITS PERMANENT BOGEYMAN

Fear as governance: how elites distract voters from economic failure

FILE PHOTO. Soldiers of the Belgian armed forces, participate with the Lightgun (LG) 1 105mm howitzer in the Wettiner Heide (Wettiner Meadow) international joint military exercises of NATO Response Force (Land) near Munster, Germany. © Morris MacMatzen/Getty Images

By Timofey Bordachev
Program Director of the Valdai Club
HomeWorld News
5 October 2025

The West excels at creating fear, focusing on threats like pandemics and migrants. Recently, concerns about Russia have become Europe’s new crisis, serving to divert attention from economic issues and influence public opinion.

Recently, authorities in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany, and the Netherlands have reported ‘suspicious flying objects’ near airports and military installations. Fighter jets have been scrambled, airports have been closed, and balloons mistaken for hostile drones—each event portrayed as if Europe was on the verge of invasion.

The origins of these drones are still unknown, but accusations immediately pointed to Russia. This reaction has become automatic. Every unexplained incident, regardless of how minor, is exaggerated into a 'pandemic of fear’ with Moscow as the scapegoat.

The immediate goal is clear – to persuade Washington that Europe is at risk of an imminent attack, thereby securing ongoing American support. However, beneath this is a more profound layer. In today’s Western politics, fear has emerged as the dominant currency.

A decade of manufactured crises

For over a decade, Western European elites have mastered the art of redirecting public discontent by exaggerating both real and perceived threats. Whether it's migrants, viruses, Russia, or China—the names may vary, but the strategy remains the same. The media plays a crucial role in helping authorities portray any issue as a life-or-death crisis, thereby shifting the public's focus away from economic stagnation.

The 2015 migration panic acted as a blueprint, depicting supposed ‘hordes’ from Africa and the Middle East as a dire threat to Europe. This fear was so intense that governments reimposed border controls that had long been abolished under the Schengen agreement. Meanwhile, the eurozone debt crisis, exposing the EU’s underlying economic weaknesses, was conveniently pushed out of attention.

Then Covid-19 arrived. Within weeks, European governments created a state of 'perfect terror’ that caused citizens to accept broad restrictions on their freedoms and overlook their economic concerns. From the perspective of the elites, this was a remarkable achievement.

In 2022, Russia’s military actions in Ukraine offered a significant advantage. This wasn't due to the EU having the capacity or desire to militarize, which it does not fully. Instead, the conflict provided ruling elites with a convenient target for public dissatisfaction. All issues—such as inflation, stagnation, and insecurity—could be attributed to Moscow. The fear of Russia transformed into a widespread, dependable crisis, akin to a new pandemic.

Politics as fear management

The results are evident at the ballot box. In recent elections in Germany, France, and the UK, voters were not driven by ideas of growth or reform but by stories of danger. European elites, feeling powerless amidst economic issues, nonetheless won two-thirds of the votes by playing on fear.

This contrasts with the satire in ‘Don’t Look Up’, where citizens ignore the asteroid overhead. In reality, Western voters are often encouraged to focus solely on external threats and overlook underlying crises such as inflation, inequality, and stagnant growth.

The pattern is evident: refugees, pandemics, Moscow, Beijing. The threat consistently originates from external sources, never from domestic mismanagement. The response remains unchanged: a politics focused on distraction and control.

The next ‘perfect storm’

The cycle seems endless. If the conflict with Russia de-escalates peacefully, another worry will emerge—artificial intelligence. While concerns about AI replacing humans are exaggerated, they fuel another wave of panic. Imagined appeals such as "Turn off your phones," "Protect your children," and "Obey the experts" are easy to foresee. Citizens, shaped by years of fear-driven ‘pandemics,’ are likely to follow these directives.

This does not necessarily stem from a detailed conspiracy. Western societies have become accustomed to panic, with fear serving as a psychological defense mechanism to avoid confronting the truth that elections often do not result in real change.

Compared to historical events like revolutions, wars, and mass bloodshed, today’s use of fear might appear harmless. It avoids violence for now, but it is just as destructive. When a population is caught in continuous waves of panic, it can't focus on solutions, only on survival. Additionally, ideas that are stifled for too long tend to burst out unexpectedly, often beyond the control of the elites.

Western Europe once saw itself as a symbol of freedom and democracy. Now, it rules through fear of migrants, diseases, Russia, and technology. This fragile system masks a deeper decline. Although it might work temporarily, the long-term repercussions could be more destabilizing than the crises the elites try to prevent.

This article was initially published by Vzglyad newspaper and has been translated and edited by the RT team.

WEST’S DRONE ACCUSATIONS BASELESS – KREMLIN

Many Western European politicians tend to blame Russia for everything without any grounds or justification, Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman, has said.

FILE PHOTO. Kremlin. © Getty Images / Walter Bibikow

HomeRussia & FSU
6 October 2025

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov urged Western European officials on Monday to expand their perspective regarding drone sightings and to cease attributing all incidents to Russia.

His remarks follow reports from several European countries of UAV sightings near airports, military sites, and other vital infrastructure over the past month. Western officials have alleged, without proof, that Moscow operates these drones.

Nonetheless, Peskov emphasized that there are "absolutely no grounds to blame Russia for this," citing a recent report of a local "aviation enthusiast" with "no connection to Russia" being detained in a European city while testing his drone.

Peskov stated, “This is a small, isolated example, but Europeans might need to expand their perspectives.”

The spokesman did not clarify which incident he was referencing. On Saturday, Bild reported that a 41-year-old Croatian national was detained near Frankfurt am Main Airport for operating a drone.

Read more
EU ‘drone wall’ summit was ‘talking shop’ – Politico.

Last week, the outlet reported that multiple German citizens were detained for operating drones near a Norwegian airport. Additionally, a Chinese national was deported by Norwegian authorities for flying a UAV near Svolvaer Airport in northern Norway.

Peskov remarked that the situation with these drones is peculiar, but it’s pointless to blame Russia. He noted that many European politicians now tend to accuse Russia of everything without any evidence or justification.

Moscow has repeatedly denied any involvement in the drone incidents at European airports. Authorities have dismissed the allegations as Western fearmongering aimed at stoking anti-Russian hysteria, justifying larger military budgets, and increasing tensions.

Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) has warned that Kiev might try to carry out drone provocations as false-flag operations, aiming to frame Moscow and draw NATO into the Ukraine conflict.

GUEST EDITORIAL | THE PIRATES OF ISRAELI SUPREMACY: THE WEST’S FAVORITE ROGUE STATE HAS DONE IT AGAIN

The assault on an aid flotilla headed for Gaza broke all kinds of laws, but then again, laws have never stopped Israel.

FILE PHOTO: Israeli navy soldiers stand guard on board a vessel as they enter Gaza's territorial waters. © Uriel Sinai / Getty Images

HomeWorld News
2 October 2025

By Tarik Cyril Amar, a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, 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

Israel’s navy violently intercepted the Gaza-bound Sumud Flotilla, stopping nearly 50 boats and kidnapping hundreds of crew and passengers.

Legally, the Sumud Flotilla was a volunteer effort to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza, which has faced Israeli genocide for nearly two years. Israel was obligated to allow that aid through.

What to expect from the world’s most aggressive rogue state that commits genocide, wages regional wars, and runs terrorist campaigns against the global public? Israel has a long history of such piracy, often stopping aid deliveries by sea since 2010, sometimes causing casualties.

Stopping the Sumud Flotilla was not only criminal but an example of Israel's legal nihilism: attacking ships in international waters where it has no jurisdiction. Even if closer to Gaza, the ships were still outside Israeli waters, as confirmed by the International Court of Justice last year. Gaza's coast has Palestinian territorial waters.

Read more
Israeli navy intercepts Gaza-bound aid flotilla (VIDEOS)

The Gaza blockade has lasted nearly twenty years and is illegal. Israel falsely claims it's a short-term measure under the San Remo rules, which outline international law for armed conflicts at sea. Even if applicable, they require allowing humanitarian aid.

Israel has attacked ships and citizens from over 40 countries, committing international law violations and, implicitly, crimes under each country's domestic laws, as these laws apply to those ships.

Please read more …

Tarik Cyril Amar, PhD, is a distinguished historian and specialist in international politics. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in Modern History from Oxford University, a Master of Science in International History from the London School of Economics, and a Doctorate in History from Princeton University. His academic pursuits include scholarships at the Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute. Additionally, he served as the director of the Center for Urban History in Lviv, Ukraine. Originally from Germany, he has resided in the United Kingdom, Ukraine, Poland, the United States, and Turkey.

Dr. Amar’s book, 'The Paradox of Ukrainian Lviv: A Borderland City between Stalinists, Nazis, and Nationalists,' was published by Cornell University Press in 2015. A forthcoming study examining the political and cultural history of Cold War television spy stories is in preparation, and he is presently engaged in authoring a new volume on the international response to the conflict in Ukraine. He has provided insights through interviews on various platforms, including several appearances on Rania Khlalek Dispatches and Breakthrough News.

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