The Friday Edition

Our Friday News Analysis | What the World Reads Now!

October 23, 2025

Helping to Heal a Broken Humanity (Part 57)

The Hague, 24 October 2025 | If you know of a decisive story, tell the world! We're still searching.

Artist’s conception of the Common Hypersonic Glide Body

EDITORIAL | Think! History is On Whose Side? (Part 21)

By Abraham A. van Kempen
24 October 2025

THINK! "The best way to predict the future is to create it."

Our editorial examines Russia's outlook for a multipolar world under President Putin, highlighting the significance of dialogue, equality, and mutual respect among nations. This idea fosters inclusivity and peaceful cooperation, urging countries to consider global power structures and collaborate for a more stable, cooperative future. It praises Putin's stance against Western-dominated systems by promoting humility and compromise instead of asserting dominance in global relations. Multipolarity rejects the precepts of unipolarity:

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

Mr. Vladimir Putin (middle), the President of the Russian Federation, has launched an inspiring initiative to transform global engagement in geopolitics. Seven of the eight billion people on earth admire him as the statesman of the century. The peace process resembles a tug-of-war—a continuous effort—that requires humility rather than military dominance. No nation is inherently more equal than any other.

Multipolarity and Global Engagement: The Vision of Vladimir Putin

The concept of multipolarity has become increasingly important in global politics recently, primarily due to the efforts and leadership of Mr. Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia. This strategy seeks to transform the international system from one dominated by a single power to a more balanced and inclusive structure in which no country holds total influence and each nation’s sovereignty is upheld.

The Rise of Multipolarity

Multipolarity occurs when multiple global powers coexist and engage with one another, rather than a single superpower dominating global affairs. Under President Putin’s leadership, Russia advocates for this system, emphasizing dialogue, mutual respect, and non-interference. The concept is that all nations, regardless of size or economic power, deserve equal voice in international affairs.

Putin’s Initiative and Global Reception

President Putin’s advocacy for a multipolar world appeals to many nations that feel sidelined by traditional power centers. His vision of a fairer global system has gained support from diverse regions, especially among countries seeking alternatives to Western-dominated governance. Although claiming that “seven of the eight billion people admire him as the statesman of the century” might be exaggerated, it highlights the widespread attention and discussion his leadership has sparked.

The Peace Process: Humility Over Dominance

The peace process in a multipolar world resembles a “tug-of-war”—a constant and challenging effort that emphasizes humility and compromise over military dominance. It views conflict resolution and diplomacy as ongoing processes requiring all parties to acknowledge their limits and respect differing perspectives. This contrasts sharply with hegemonic models, in which force or coercion are often the primary tools.

Equality Among Nations

A fundamental idea of multipolarity is that no country is inherently superior to others. This perspective rejects exceptionalism and advocates a system in which all nations are equal in shaping the future. Promoting inclusivity and multipolarity aims to reduce tensions and foster collaboration, ultimately creating a more stable and peaceful global environment.

Conclusion

Vladimir Putin’s advocacy for a multipolar world has sparked debates and reevaluations of current geopolitical frameworks. While attaining universal admiration and complete equality among nations remains difficult, the focus on humility, dialogue, and fair engagement continues to influence international relations. Ultimately, transitioning to a multipolar system represents a significant shift that encourages countries to collaborate for peace and mutual prosperity.

As I have mentioned repeatedly, we are now at a stage of mutual deterrence. This approach encourages diplomacy, making it more productive to engage in negotiations and reasoning than to risk a nuclear catastrophe in our own backyards. Let’s join Vlado Putin to create a better future by healing our broken humanity.

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

JEFFREY SACHS: UNDERSTANDING THE UKRAINE CONFLICT (MINIDOC)

This mini-documentary outlines the protracted nature of the Ukraine conflict, shaped by failed negotiations, external influence from Western powers, and long-standing historical mistrust between Russia, the US, and the UK. It highlights how Western support for Ukraine has prolonged suffering without a clear strategic goal, rooted in deep-seated policies of expansion and confrontation. The text calls for a shift in Western strategy that acknowledges global changes and prioritizes genuine peace and security over continued escalation.

Watch the Video Here (29 minutes, 35 seconds)

Host: Julius Kivi
JUJU
6 December 2024

The Historical Context and Evolution of the Ukraine War

The Ukraine conflict is frequently described as a simple assault by Vladimir Putin on Ukraine, yet its origins are closely linked to decades of international diplomacy, commitments, and strategic choices. To grasp the current conflict, it is crucial to analyze the sequence of events and policy changes that have culminated in the present crisis.

The Origins: Promises and Expansion

The story begins in February 1990, during talks about Germany's unification. U.S. Secretary of State James Baker III reportedly assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand "one inch eastward" if Gorbachev agreed to German unification, effectively ending World War II. However, despite the documentary evidence shown in the mini-documentary, Baker and later President George H.W. Bush denied that such an agreement had occurred, creating some ambiguity. Despite this, Gorbachev highlighted the importance of NATO not expanding eastward, and a deal was made regarding German unification.

The United States soon moved away from this initial understanding. In 1994, President Clinton endorsed plans to expand NATO, including the admission of Ukraine. The policy stated that no country would be automatically barred from joining and that no external nation would have veto rights over expansion. This shift marked the emergence of the so-called "neocons," with Clinton as a key supporter. NATO’s expansion began in 1999, when Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic joined, symbolically closing the Cold War divisions in Europe. The aim was to create a united, free, democratic, peaceful, and secure Europe—a Europe where Russia and Ukraine would participate cooperatively.

Tensions and Turning Points

At that time, Russia did not see an immediate threat, except near Kaliningrad. However, tensions grew after NATO bombed Serbia in 1999, which Russia strongly opposed. Despite initial protests, Russia, led by President Putin, accepted the situation, and Putin even considered joining NATO, suggesting a relationship based on mutual respect. When meeting outgoing President Clinton at the Kremlin, Putin asked about Russia's possible membership in NATO. Clinton first responded yes, but then changed his position after consulting with his team.

The events of September 11, 2001, led to further developments. Russia supported the U.S. in its efforts in Afghanistan, but two major incidents occurred afterward. In 2002, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which had helped maintain nuclear deterrence. This move resulted in U.S. missile deployments in Eastern Europe, which Russia saw as an existential threat due to their closeness to Moscow. While the U.S. claimed these systems were solely for defense, Russia was worried they might host nuclear missiles capable of a decapitation strike.

In 2003, the United States launched a military intervention in Iraq amid widely debated circumstances, intensifying global tensions. In the mid-2000s, the U.S. was involved in regime change efforts in Ukraine, primarily through the so-called "first color revolution," which led to President Yushchenko taking office. Despite U.S. involvement, Ukraine's population remained divided, with polls showing little support for NATO accession.

The Path to Conflict

In 2014, the United States played an active role in regime change by supporting the overthrow of President Yanukovich. Russia intercepted and leaked a call between U.S. officials about forming a new Ukrainian government, which intensified accusations of foreign interference. Subsequently, the U.S. advocated for expanded NATO membership, despite multiple Russian warnings.

NATO kept expanding, with seven additional countries joining in 2004, breaking the earlier promise of "not one inch eastward." Despite Russia's protests, the U.S. ignored concerns about NATO's growth near its borders, while missile systems were deployed in Eastern Europe and major arms agreements were discarded. The U.S. pulled out of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019 and the Iran nuclear deal in 2017, weakening trust and diplomatic stability.

In December 2021, President Putin suggested a draft security agreement between Russia and the U.S., centered on stopping NATO expansion. Despite requests for negotiation from the White House, the U.S. maintained its support for an "Open Door" policy for NATO. It refused to relax restrictions on military deployments close to Russia’s borders.

Escalation and Missed Opportunities for Peace

After negotiations were rejected, Russia launched its "special military operation" in Ukraine. President Zelenskyy later indicated a willingness to remain neutral, while Turkey suggested acting as a mediator. An agreement was nearly reached, but the United States and Britain discouraged Ukraine from negotiating further, urging continued resistance. As a result, Ukrainian casualties have risen significantly, and the conflict has been prolonged.

Allegations emerged suggesting the UK, especially Boris Johnson, influenced the failure to reach a peace agreement in April 2022. Nevertheless, some parties involved deny that their intervention was decisive, asserting that no Ukrainian president could have accepted the proposed terms at the time.

Proxy War and Western Support

The ongoing conflict is viewed as a proxy war, where Western countries support Ukraine but lack sufficient backing for a decisive victory. Ukrainians are fighting under harsh conditions, and Western objectives remain unclear, delaying resolution. To resolve the conflict, Ukraine should receive full military assistance, financial support, and a well-defined end state that clearly communicates to Russia what the future holds.

Supporting Ukraine, as Western leaders assert, has led to daily suffering and loss for millions of Ukrainians. This strategy, dubbed "Orwellian," has caused more harm than protection for Ukraine.

Deep-Seated Policies and Historical Perspective

Western foreign policy towards Russia has deep historical roots and has remained relatively stable over time. In a 2017 interview, President Putin noted that American presidents often begin with specific ideas, yet strong security and intelligence interests sometimes overshadow those ideas. This pattern has persisted since at least 1991, if not earlier. Likewise, British policy towards Russia has been relatively consistent since the 1840s. Historical disputes and conflicts, such as those that sparked the Crimean War and ongoing Russophobia, have shaped the perspectives and actions of both the UK and the US regarding Russia.

Even during the alliances in World Wars I and II, underlying suspicions persisted. After the incredible sacrifices made by the Soviet Union in WWII, British leaders considered continuing hostilities against the Soviet Union, underscoring how these strategic concerns persisted over time.

Conclusion: A Call for Strategic Change

Western foreign policy has historically focused on expansion and confrontation, often overlooking avenues for negotiation and peace. The ongoing Ukraine conflict exemplifies these patterns, influenced by long-standing mistrust and strategic concerns. A change in strategy is essential—one that takes into account the realities of a multipolar world and the risks of nuclear conflict. Genuine progress and resolution will only occur when the security systems of the U.S. and its allies accept this new global context.

WION INDIA | TRUMP IMPOSES SANCTIONS ON RUSSIA’S OIL GIANTS

Prof. Glenn Diesen explains on WION India that:

Trump’s sanctions on Russia could undermine peace efforts, escalate the conflict, and lead to Russia further disconnecting from the West.
Trump appears to have reverted to the idea that a ceasefire equals peace, moving away from his earlier stance in Alaska that the root causes of the war need to be addressed.

Watch Video Here (9 minutes, 53 minutes)

WION Counterpoint
WION India
23 August 2025

WION’s international broadcast examines how sanctions affect Russia, the changing diplomatic scene, and the redistribution of responsibilities among global powers involved in the Ukraine conflict. Experts point out Russia's economic resilience, the strengthening ties between Russia and China, and the difficulties in diplomatic talks. The report highlights Europe's increasing role and accountability, the constraints of US participation, and the war's existential impact on Russia, emphasizing that sincere engagement is crucial for achieving lasting peace.

GUEST EDITOR | WHEN TOMAHAWKS BECOME BOOMERANGS

Zelensky’s recent embarrassment in Washington reflects more than just a Trump mood swing.

US President Donald Trump speaks with Vladimir Zelensky as White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Vice President JD Vance listen at the White House, Washington, DC, October 17, 2025. © AP Photo/Alex Brandon

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

HomeWorld News
20 October 2025

Leave it to Mr. Unpredictable, aka Donald Trump, to swiftly change policy, reject plans, and introduce ambiguities. Trump declined use of Tomahawk missiles for Kiev—possibly not permanently, as Vance noted—but the "foreseeable future' remains uncertain.

Throughout the process, it’s clear that Kiev’s Vladimir Zelensky has fallen out of favor. After a period of apparent support—during which he dressed like a diplomat and flattered Trump—this non-electoral Ukrainian leader is now sidelined. There’s no reception at the airport, and a scheduled Friday-afternoon meeting hints at a bid to dismiss a problematic visitor before the weekend. Reports also indicate some tense exchanges and shouting.

It's as if Zelensky hadn't flown to Washington but had returned to February, when he was publicly rebuked in the Oval Office.

Some Western 'friends' of Ukraine might feel reassured that Trump privately criticized Zelensky, but the details were quickly leaked to the Financial Times.

The leak may have come from a desperate pro-Zelensky insider in the U.S. government, possibly Keith Kellogg, trying to alert Europeans to hinder a swift peace. Meanwhile, Maria Zakharova of Russia's Foreign Ministry says interference has resumed.

Read more
US shouldn’t deplete Tomahawk arsenal for Ukraine – Trump.

Fortunate Ukrainians! You are governed by a regime that conscripts you into a brutal, pointless conflict—once promised NATO membership by Western allies (disregard that fleeting promise)—and now offers nothing. You're supported by European allies who fear ending this deadly deception while some of you are still alive.

Please continue reading …

Tarik Cyril Amar, PhD, is a distinguished historian and expert in international politics. He holds a BA in Modern History from Oxford, an MSc in International History from LSE, and a PhD from Princeton. His scholarships include the Holocaust Memorial Museum and Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute. He was also director of the Center for Urban History in Lviv, Ukraine. Originally German, he has lived in the UK, Ukraine, Poland, the US, and Turkey.

Dr. Amar’s book, 'The Paradox of Ukrainian Lviv,' was published by Cornell in 2015. He's working on a study about Cold War TV spy stories and a new volume on Ukraine's international response. He has shared insights in interviews, including on Rania Khalek Dispatches and Breakthrough News.

TRUMP CANCELS SUMMIT WITH PUTIN

The US President did not rule out meeting his Russian counterpart later.

US President Donald Trump. © Getty Images

22 Oct, 2025 21:20
HomeWorld News

US President Donald Trump canceled his planned summit with Vladimir Putin in Budapest, saying he doesn't believe the talks would yield results at this stage. Moscow has yet to comment.

Trump announced during a White House meeting with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte on Wednesday that the planned summit in Hungary “did not feel right.”

“It did not feel like we would reach our goal, so I canceled it," he said.

However, Trump did not rule out holding talks with Moscow later, saying, “But we will do it [the summit] in the future,” without specifying when or where.

Read more
Trump-Putin summit ‘on hold’ – US media

Trump’s remarks followed US Treasury sanctions on Russia, citing its failure to pursue peace. Restrictions targeted major oil firms Rosneft and Lukoil, as well as their subsidiaries.

The US President admitted uncertainty whether new sanctions would change Russia’s stance on Ukraine, saying, “Hopefully he [Putin] will become reasonable, and hopefully [Ukraine’s Vladimir] Zelensky will be reasonable too,” adding, “It takes two to tango.”

Plans for a Putin–Trump summit were announced last week following a phone call between the two leaders, though no specific date was set.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the Russia–US meeting needs 'serious preparations' and 'should not be wasted,' since both presidents aim for results.

GEORGE BEEBE: US-RUSSIA AGREEMENT TO END NATO EXPANSIONISM OR ACCEPT AN UGLY RUSSIAN VICTORY

Prof. Glenn Diesen and former CIA Analyst George Beebe review the ongoing Ukraine conflict, emphasizing the fragile political situation faced by both Ukraine and Russia. It discusses the dangers of escalation and the risk of regional instability if no agreement is achieved. The analysis indicates that although Russia has the capacity to escalate militarily, President Putin presently favors diplomacy to bolster Russia's standing internationally. Ultimately, the report underscores the importance of pragmatic diplomacy and practical strategies to avoid additional destabilization.

Watch the Video Here (32 minutes, 02 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
23 August 2025

Analysis of the Ukraine Conflict: Interview with George Beebe

Welcome back to the program. Today, we're pleased to host Mr. George Beebe, the Director of Grand Strategy at the Quincy Institute. With over twenty years of distinguished experience as a government intelligence analyst, including his role as Director of the CIA's Russia analysis division, he brings valuable insights. He is also the author of the well-regarded book, "The Russia Trap: How Our Shadow War with Russia Could Spiral into Nuclear Catastrophe" (2019), which is considered ahead of its time. We genuinely thank you for joining us again, Mr. Beebe.

Current Diplomatic Situation

The current political climate is characterized by confusion and volatility. Recently, President Trump announced plans to send Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, to be operated by American contractors, which many interpret as a direct attack. The prospect of deploying nuclear warheads heightened tensions; Russia stated it would treat such a missile as nuclear if it neared its borders.

Trump later withdrew this proposal, raising concerns about negotiation strategies and strategic goals. Media reports indicate ongoing uncertainty regarding diplomatic talks, such as those in Budapest, with conflicting accounts from the U.S. and Russia. The situation remains complex and tense, raising questions about the future policies of both nations.

President Trump’s Strategy

President Trump’s stance on the war has consistently been to pursue a negotiated resolution, even though his tactics have been adaptable. He has employed various strategies, modifying them when they prove ineffective, which can lead to confusion—especially within the current media landscape.
Over 90% of media coverage is produced by outlets that oppose compromise, push for Russian capitulation, and depict alternative outcomes as appeasement and potential future security threats.
This bias influences public opinion and how the negotiation efforts are portrayed, often showing them as hopeless and prompting the administration to favor military solutions over diplomatic ones.

Opposition to Compromise

A strong opposition to ending the war through compromise persists, especially among certain European elites, Ukrainian factions, and much of the mainstream Western media. European leaders like Kaya Kalas are seen as key opponents, viewing negotiations as a threat to European security.

In Ukraine, some elites oppose concessions for strategic reasons and for vested interests in ongoing Western support. In the U.S., parts of the permanent bureaucracy and media also oppose compromise, pushing for maximum pressure on Russia. Although not officially coordinated, these groups seem to share similar messaging and goals.

Battlefield Dynamics and Attritional Warfare

The battlefield advantage is increasingly shifting in Russia's favor, mainly due to its attritional warfare strategy. Instead of relying on rapid maneuvers or blitzkrieg tactics, Russia capitalizes on its size, population, and industrial strength to produce more weapons and ammunition than the West and Ukraine.

Progress in this type of warfare is slow but accumulates over time, as in World War I, where exhaustion, rather than quick breakthroughs, decided the outcome. Ukraine is struggling with manpower shortages, while Russia consistently hits its recruitment goals by offering attractive compensation.

The widening gap in forces, casualties, and recruitment is likely to deepen Russian advantages, with Ukrainian forces shrinking and Russian forces growing.

Media Narratives and Public Support

European and Western narratives often highlight Ukrainian resilience and stalemate to sustain public support, while downplaying losses and changing public opinion. This selective storytelling can lead to self-deception and hinder an accurate understanding of the conflict.

There is an urgent need for open conversations about the true battlefield situation and feasible diplomatic strategies to avoid a collapse that could lead to Russian victory and extended future tensions.

Possible Paths to Negotiated Peace

The conflict involves four key parties —Russia, Ukraine, the United States, and Europe —each with different views. For a peaceful resolution, compromise is crucial, especially on NATO expansion and territorial matters. The U.S. has indicated it may stop NATO from expanding eastward, including into Ukraine, while Russia might accept Ukraine joining the EU.

An important point is that there will be no NATO or Western combat forces on Ukrainian territory, which Russia insists on. Previous U.S. leaders avoided direct military involvement in Ukraine, and maintaining this stance is viewed as necessary to prevent escalation.

Territorial Compromises

Territorial disputes persist as a major challenge. Russia has indicated some flexibility with Kherson and Zaporizhia, leaning toward a freeze rather than demanding a complete Ukrainian withdrawal.

Progress is evident at the Zaporizhia nuclear plant, where a ceasefire allows repairs and suggests pragmatic negotiations. Conversely, Donetsk remains a sticking point; Russia calls for full Ukrainian withdrawal, with little willingness to compromise.

Many fighters from Donetsk and Lugansk are defending their homeland, strengthening Russia’s stance. For Ukraine, giving up territory remains politically delicate, especially for President Zelensky, who faces opposition from hardliners.

Outlook and Risks of Escalation

If no compromise is achieved, Ukraine faces the danger of turning into a dysfunctional state, hindered by Russia’s ability to sabotage reconstruction efforts. This could lead to regional destabilization and generate new flashpoints for conflict.

The West might shift from negotiating to intensifying its involvement, heightening the risk of a direct clash. The opportunity to resolve broader geopolitical issues will shrink, possibly leaving Europe and the West in ongoing conflict with Russia.

Russia’s Strategic Calculations

Russia maintains the capability for rapid escalation, such as devastating strikes or targeting Ukrainian leaders, but has held back from these actions to preserve diplomatic options with the United States.

President Putin favors a negotiated resolution due to its geopolitical advantages, such as balancing relations with China and upholding Russia’s status as a major global power.

If negotiations break down, escalation could become more likely, but Putin currently seems committed to seeking a feasible compromise.

Conclusion

The interview underscores the complexity of the Ukraine conflict, the difficulties in media narratives, and the importance of realistic diplomatic efforts. Moving forward requires recognizing the realities on the battlefield, encouraging practical compromises, and avoiding escalation that could lead to lasting regional instability.

PROF. JEFFREY SACHS: LAST CHANCE FOR PEACE IN UKRAINE SABOTAGED BY EUROPE

Prof. Diesen’s conversation with Prof. Sachs examines the dynamics of the Ukraine conflict, highlighting a seemingly straightforward U.S. leadership during President Trump's tenure and the significant influence of Europe. It explores NATO's direct engagement, the dangers of escalation between nuclear-armed states, and proposes a possible route to peace through Ukrainian neutrality and territorial concessions. The conclusion underscores the critical need for pragmatic European leadership and sincere negotiations to break the ongoing cycle of violence.

Watch the Video Here (29 minutes, 09 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
22 August 2025

Analysis of the Current State of the Ukraine Conflict and European Policy

This section covers a discussion with Professor Jeffrey Sachs on Ukraine's prospects for peace, including diplomatic initiatives, European reactions, and geopolitical effects. Prof. Sachs highlights that the chance for a peaceful resolution is narrowing, especially as Europeans responded strongly to the Trump-Putin meeting in Budapest.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs has provided counsel to governments worldwide and is a globally esteemed economist, bestselling author, pioneering educator, and international leader in sustainable development.

Recent Diplomatic Efforts

An initial plan was set for Putin and Trump to meet in Budapest to negotiate a peaceful end to the Ukraine conflict. European reactions ranged from panic to disappointment, especially after earlier optimism about military escalation, like deploying Tomahawk missiles, which could have risked nuclear conflict. Later, the Hungarian foreign minister accused European nations of sabotaging the meeting, leading to its cancellation. Though the war continues causing losses, many European capitals appeared relieved at the cancellation.

European Leadership and Political Climate

European leaders are seen as struggling to maintain authority, with approval ratings around 20% and disapproval at 80% among figures like Starmer (UK), Mertz (Germany), and Macron (France). Their policies are often viewed as unsuccessful, marked by a persistent lack of a rational strategy concerning the war. Since negotiations broke down in April 2022, these leaders have supported ongoing conflict for over three years, yet no clear goals have been reached.

Economic and Battlefield Consequences

The conflict and the halt of economic ties with Russia have caused a substantial financial downturn in Europe, shifting the focus away from key issues such as technological rivalry with the U.S. and China. Ukraine has endured severe losses on the battlefield, including loss of territory and a high toll of casualties—estimates suggest over a million to nearly two million dead and seriously injured. The country also grapples with demographic problems, as many people flee, and faces infrastructure breakdowns, such as widespread power outages.

Persistent Unrealistic Expectations

European leaders persist in promoting goals often seen as unrealistic, like Ukraine regaining all lost territory, Russia paying reparations, seizing Russian assets, and expanding NATO to include Ukraine. These ambitions are labeled delusional and lack public support, as citizens grow more disillusioned with their leaders' strategies.

Justifications and Rationalizations

Recalcitrant EU leaders argue it's better to face Russia directly on Ukrainian soil rather than risk compromising Western European capitals through Russian advances. However, this reasoning is frequently dismissed as baseless and is not subject to debate or scrutiny. Some suggest that war profiteering could be a motivation, but the discussion emphasizes that the intense extremism seen in European wartime policies cannot be solely blamed on American influence, especially considering President Trump’s stated goal to end the conflict.

Influence of Eastern European States

Russia's neighboring countries on the frontline, such as the Baltic states and Poland, hold a strong anti-Russian stance, which shapes broader European policy. The European Union seems to let its most anti-Russian members influence its foreign policy, as seen in the appointment of a high representative from Estonia. This representative is characterized as very anti-Russian and dismissive of diplomacy.

Unilateral Peace Proposals

Despite the ongoing conflict and the absence of dialogue with Russia, European leaders are in the process of developing a new 12-point plan for Ukraine. These proposals are unilateral, notably excluding consideration of Russian security concerns, NATO expansion, or Ukrainian neutrality. One point concerns the potential legalization of the seizure of Russian assets, contingent on Russia’s consent to their use in reconstruction—an offer that provides minimal incentive for Russia.

Historical Context and Strategic Miscalculations

The origins of today’s situation date back to the 1990s, when the West aimed to expand NATO and the EU to incorporate Ukraine and Georgia. Analyses like Brzezinski’s "The Grand Chessboard" underestimated how Russia might react and overlooked the possibility of an alliance between Russia and China, a mistake that has been proven wrong. Currently, Russia emphasizes strengthening economic ties with BRICS nations and China, decreasing its dependence on the European Union and the United States.

US Leadership and European Influence

The United States, under the Trump administration, is characterized by an absence of a coherent strategy and is portrayed as susceptible to European influence. The cancellation of the Budapest meeting is attributed to European pressure, with President Trump depicted as lacking the strength and clarity required for independent leadership. European leaders seem to believe that sustained pressure will ultimately lead to Russia's collapse. This perspective is criticized as cynical and contrary to the interests of both their own publics and the Ukrainian population.

NATO’s Role and the Nature of the War

The conflict is seen not just as a proxy war but as a direct clash between NATO and Russia, involving equipment, funding, intelligence, and ground personnel. Although most casualties are Ukrainian, the deaths of American and European individuals highlight NATO's direct role. The situation is considered extremely risky because it involves two nuclear-armed nations.

Prospects for Peace and Future Risks

A feasible route to peace is proposed: Ukraine's neutrality, a territorial settlement, and a demilitarized zone that guarantees security for everyone. Nonetheless, achieving this depends on wise judgment, historical accountability, and strong leadership—qualities that Western leaders currently lack. The cycle of ineffective proposals and ongoing conflict will probably continue until more realistic and pragmatic voices in Europe can shape policy.

Escalating Risks of Direct War

If there is no chance for a peaceful agreement, the alternative could be direct conflict between Western nations and Russia. Recent events, like Western participation in attacks on Russian infrastructure, suggest a rising risk of outright confrontation. The discussion underscores ongoing illusions in major Western capitals, especially the continued imperial mindset in London.

Conclusion

The interview ends by highlighting the urgent necessity for change in European policy and leadership. Addressing core issues and engaging in sincere negotiations are essential to breaking the cycle of violence and destruction in Ukraine.

DR. GILBERT DOCTOROW: WILL PUTIN CHANGE TACTICS?

Judge Napolitano of Judging Freedom discusses the perspectives of the Russian public and elites on the ongoing conflict with Dr. Gilbert Doctorow. He emphasizes a widespread desire among ordinary citizens for a return to normalcy and notes increasing pressure from Moscow's elites to revise military strategy. The discussion further examines official rhetoric on escalation and peace negotiations, and Russia's insistence on addressing the conflict's fundamental issues, thereby depicting a multifaceted situation shaped by adversity, propaganda, and political maneuvering.

Watch the Video Here (24 minutes, 22 seconds)

Host: Judge Andrew Napolitano
Judging Freedom
22 August 2025

Interview with Dr. Gilbert Doctorow: The Impact of War on Russia

Judge Andrew Napolitano hosts Dr. Gilbert Doctorow on Judging Freedom on Wednesday, October 22nd, 2025. They discuss the challenges facing President Putin and how the ongoing war is shaping Russian society.

Pressure on President Putin

Dr. Doctorow states that President Putin faces significant pressure from wider Moscow elites, rather than from his close colleagues who present a united front. Additionally, the general public is experiencing the effects of the war, as their daily routines are increasingly disrupted.

Effects of War on Ordinary Russians

Dr. Doctorow observes notable changes since his previous visit to Russia in May. Although Moscow seems mostly unaffected thanks to better management and robust air defenses, St. Petersburg experiences more serious disruptions. The city's mayor is described as corrupt and inept, worsening local challenges.

Upon arriving in St. Petersburg, Dr. Doctorow faced delays due to a drone attack that disrupted all air traffic. The disturbance also affected ground transportation, as his taxi driver had trouble with a malfunctioning GPS and with airport access controls. These issues are linked to government efforts to block incoming drones by disabling or feeding false GPS signals, a tactic once used only during major events but now commonplace.

Technological and Economic Disruptions

Along with navigation problems, mobile internet outages have become common. These outages disrupt daily activities: ATMs and credit card transactions at retail stores often become unavailable. Once rare, such disruptions now occur every few days, turning the home front into a battleground in cities like St. Petersburg and beyond.

Government systems, including municipal offices, are affected, disrupting routine tasks such as registering foreigners—a legal requirement for visitors in private homes. Dr. Doctorow points out that Moscow does not face these issues, as its authorities focus on the city’s prestige and the experience of foreign visitors.

Inflation and Product Availability

Surprisingly, Dr. Doctorow has not noticed widespread inflation. He surveyed supermarkets in various economic tiers. Lower-end stores display less variety, especially in fresh greens and dairy, likely due to customers' financial constraints. Conversely, upper-middle-class supermarkets maintain a full range of products, with some prices falling since May. For example, fish prices have decreased by 35%, which is advantageous for wealthier shoppers.

The main concerns among the general public focus on fuel prices and availability. Although Dr. Doctorow has not observed long lines at gas stations, reports from business radio indicate increasing fuel prices on commodity exchanges, which contribute to public uncertainty.

Public Sentiment and Attitudes Toward the War

Dr. Doctorow gains insights from ordinary Russians, like taxi drivers. The main feeling is a hope that the war will end soon, driven by the increasing hardships they face. But this does not mean they are directly criticizing President Putin or expressing widespread anger; instead, it shows a general wish for everyday life.

The Moscow elites are increasingly linking everyday disruptions to the war effort, potentially exerting pressure on the president to change his military strategy.

Official Statements and Media Coverage

The interview discusses reports that President Putin told President Trump that Ukrainian President Zelenski should "get realistic or Ukraine will be destroyed."

Dr. Doctorow verifies this statement's accuracy, citing Russian TV host Vladimir Solovyov, who is closely linked to the Kremlin and repeats similar messages on air. Solovyov’s remarks are regarded as representative of Kremlin policy rather than personal views.

Prospects for Escalation and Peace Talks

The discussion shifts to the possibility of transforming the "special military operation" into a full-scale war, involving the entire Russian population. Dr. Doctorow indicates this change might happen in response to major events like the planned delivery of Tomahawk missiles to Kyiv. The prospects of a peace summit between Trump and Putin in Budapest are unclear, with mixed reports from Western media and Russian officials.

Foreign Minister Lavrov reaffirms Russia’s commitment to tackling the root causes of the conflict and to establishing a long-lasting, sustainable peace beyond a ceasefire. He criticizes Western attempts to achieve a truce without addressing core issues like the status of Russian-speaking Ukrainians and the weapons sent to Kyiv.

Conclusion

The discussion concludes with a reflection on the complexities of Russian society during wartime. Dr. Doctorow’s insights offer a nuanced perspective on public sentiment, elite pressures, and the struggles of ordinary citizens. Judge Napolitano expresses gratitude to Dr. Doctorow for his insights and anticipates future conversations.

THE UKRAINIAN ARMY’S NEW NIGHTMARE: HAS RUSSIA DEVELOPED A BREAKTHROUGH LONG-RANGE BOMB?

If confirmed, it would represent a turning point—bringing Ukraine’s rear lines within daily strike range.

FILE PHOTO. Grad multiple rocket launchers of the Zapad group in action in the Krasny Liman direction. © Sputnik/Stanislav Krasilnikov

By the Military Informant Telegram channel @milinfolive
HomeRussia & FSU
22 October 2025

Recently, reports indicate Russia deploying new long-range bombs on the front lines. Vadim Skibitsky, Ukraine’s Deputy Head of Intelligence, said a recent test showed a Russian bomb with 193 km range, greatly extending its reach and potentially altering battlefield dynamics. Let’s examine this further.

Typically, bombs have a range of up to 90 kilometers from the front line, but Ukraine’s Main Directorate of Intelligence mentions a bomb that can fly 120-150 kilometers and be dropped far from the front.

Developing long-range bombs has been slow. The first UMPKs converted bombs into precision-guided munitions, initially allowing drops from 10-12 km to travel 40-50 km. Upgraded to UMPK-PD, range extended to over 80 km. Now, Skibitsky reports a new version can reach up to 193 km.

What is this new aerial bomb that Ukraine’s Main Directorate of Intelligence mentions? There are three possibilities.

1. The Grom-1/Grom-2 missile-bomb complex can function as a missile or gliding bomb, with limited use in the Special Military Operation zone. It may have been upgraded and reintroduced.

Read more
His Majesty’s missiles: From rule Britannia to ballistic impotence

2. Upgraded Universal Interspecific Glide Munition (UMPB): The modernized UMPB-5R has a rocket engine extending its range to 130-150 km. Originally, it was an analog to the American GLSDB. The rocket engine boosts its range.

3. A new UMPK-PD with a rocket engine can cover about 150 km. Ukraine has shown fragments of UMPKs purportedly with an extra booster, but no definitive conclusions have been reached.

Evaluating these bombs' large-scale production, variants with rocket engines seem most promising. Integrating a rocket engine into the inexpensive UMPK allows easy adaptation for tactical aviation without significantly affecting production. While the UMPB is more complex and costly, it has been produced in large quantities and widely used by the Russian Air Force. Conversely, mass production of the more complex Grom missile/bomb complex is less likely. Still, parallel output and deployment of all these munitions remain possible.

The main point is not just that Russian bombs can reach 150-200 kilometers – we already know that. More importantly, increased serial production would allow systematic carpet bombing and precision strikes, eliminating Ukraine's 'safe rear' zone.

The new mass aerial munition with a 200 km range will boost daily target hits and enable the Russian army to reallocate other weapons, like Geran drones and costly cruise missiles.

As the enemy’s safety zone shrinks, the safe operating area for Russian Su-34 bombers will expand, allowing them to drop new bombs from greater distances and lowering the risk of entering enemy air defense range.

TRUMP'S "SUPER DUPER" DELUSION – OUR MISSILES DON’T WORK

The President believes we have the best missiles in the world. The reality is quite different: our missiles are not functioning.

Artist’s conception of the Common Hypersonic Glide Body

By Scott Ritter
Substack.com
11 October 2025

“We have the super-fast missiles — a tremendous number of super-fast. We call them ‘super-fast,’ where they’re four, five, six, and even seven times faster than an ordinary missile. We need that because, again, Russia has some.” Donald Trump, February 2020

“We have a — I call it the ‘super-duper missile.’ And I heard the other night, 17 times faster than what they have right now….and you take the fastest missile we have right now — you’ve heard Russia has five times, and China is working on five or six times. We have one 17 times.” Donald Trump, May 2020

“We are building…rockets, and missiles; even a hypersonic missile that goes 17 times faster than the fastest missile currently available in the world and can hit a target 1,000 miles away within 14 inches from the center point.” Donald Trump, July 2020

Donald Trump has long promoted a "super-duper missile” that allegedly flies “17 times faster” than competitors.

Some believe Trump is referring to the AGM-183A missile in the Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW) program. The US Air Force awarded Lockheed Martin over $480 million in August 2018 to design the ARRW. An initial test occurred in 2019. Lockheed received a $988.8 million contract in December 2019 for critical design review, testing, and production support. A second missile was tested in 2020. The Air Force requested $382m in 2021 and $581m in 2022 for ARRW development, aiming to produce 33 missiles for testing by December 2022.

An AGM-183A ARRW missile mounted on a B-52 bomber

In March 2023, after test failures and cost overruns, Air Force acquisition chief Andrew Hunter announced the shutdown of the AGM-183 ARRW program and a shift of focus to the hypersonic HACM. The US Air Force requested $384 million in 2024 to develop the HACM, down from $425 million in 2023.

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 seeking the bigger picture to expand their horizons. They don't need BTB or anyone else to confirm their biases.

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

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

Continue reading

A Free Trial for Life – SUBSCRIBE NOW!

• It's quick and straightforward.

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

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

• Please include your First and Last Name.

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

_________________________

Related Articles Recently Posted on www.buildingthebridgefoundation.com:

OUR FRIDAY NEWS ANALYSIS

OUR WEDNESDAY NEWS ANALYSIS

OUR MONDAY EDITION