Our Friday News Analysis | What the World Reads Now!

EDITORIAL | “The Best Way to Predict the Future is to Create It" (Part 22)

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
Click here for Part 19
Click here for Part 20
Click here for Part 21

By Abraham A. van Kempen

31 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 Vladimirovich Putin (1952), 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 gained prominence in global politics, especially during Mr. Putin's leadership. I’m unsure if it’s his brainchild, but he definitely crystallized its finer points. Between 2000 and 2007, he hosted European heads of state at his table to discuss a shared future for all Europeans. None took him seriously. Europe was not ready to treat the Russian Federation as their equal, despite Russia being the largest European nation and the biggest country on earth. On February 10, 2007, he presented his views on a multipolar world order at the 43rd Munich Security Conference. The European elite misconstrued Mr. Putin’s 8,000-word speech as a call to restore the former Soviet Union's glory.

Europe proved incorrigible in its approach, driven by a divide-and-conquer delusion aimed at splitting Russia into smaller nations, similar to the former Yugoslavia. Ultimately, Mr. Putin shifted his focus beyond Europe to the Global South and Eurasia. The rest is history. The multilateral approach seeks to transform the international system from one dominated by a single power to a more balanced and inclusive structure in which no country has absolute influence. Each nation’s sovereignty is protected.

Not too coincidentally, the name Vladimir means Prince of Peace.

The Rise of Multipolarity

Multipolarity occurs when multiple global powers coexist and engage with one another, rather than a single superpower, i.e., the Collective West, 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 not be too 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.

Catalytic Versus Cataclysmic

Humanity has reached a point of mutual deterrence. Deterrence drives diplomacy, prompting us to pursue negotiations and dialogue rather than risking nuclear annihilation. Diplomacy is catalytic—transformative —while military action is cataclysmic—destructive and catastrophic.

Conclusion

Vladimir Putin’s advocacy for a multipolar world has sparked debates and reevaluations of current geopolitical frameworks. 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 paradigm shift that encourages countries to collaborate for peace and mutual prosperity.

Let’s team up with Vlado Putin to build 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

FYODOR LUKYANOV: MOSCOW WON’T ACCEPT PEACE WITHOUT REWRITING THE POST-1991 ORDER

The road to peace in Ukraine runs through the ruins of Atlanticism.

FILE PHOTO. © Sputnik/Sergey Bobylev

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

Russia in Global Affairs (RGA) on Telegram

HomeRussia & FSU
27 October 2025

US President Donald Trump said Saturday he would only meet Vladimir Putin once the deal terms are clear. Moscow agrees on careful preparation, but the two sides mean different things.

Washington seeks an immediate end to hostilities, with the US only allowing Western Europeans to lead after a ceasefire. Moscow insists on tackling root causes first, requiring a comprehensive deal, not a quick truce.

The American approach is understandable. Russia holds the military initiative, and ongoing fighting boosts its bargaining power. Halting the war would freeze this advantage. Trump’s team shows little interest in maintaining a heavy US presence in Europe, believing Europeans should handle their security and focus on global issues.

From Moscow’s perspective, this stance mirrors Europe’s long-term post-Cold War development, which has been mainly driven by the belief that Atlanticism would continue to expand eastward indefinitely. The Kremlin contends that this reasoning—and the political momentum it generated after 1991—must now be reconsidered.

NATO’s eastward expansion after the Soviet Union's collapse was driven more by politics than military strategy. For the West, admitting new members was a way to absorb and control former Soviet-bloc countries, expanding the Western "empire" under liberal democracy. Joining the alliance was both a declaration of faith and a political tool for new members.

This suggests military planning was secondary, not irrelevant. Moscow’s objections stemmed from potential threats of expansion, which Western leaders dismissed, ignoring Russia’s warnings and proposals.

Since 2022, the situation has changed dramatically. NATO’s expansion and new military stance now prioritize confrontation with Russia, moving away from a broader political role and focusing on military containment. The addition of Finland and Sweden is substantially different from Croatia’s or Slovakia's accession. Moreover, Ukraine’s push for membership would represent an even more serious escalation.

The current conflict exposes these contradictions, depriving the West of the ability to ignore Moscow’s concerns and intensifying the confrontation. Theoretical debates about Europe’s security are now real issues of war and peace.

That reality influences negotiation prospects. The battlefield situation is decisive, making an immediate ceasefire unlikely. The conflict's historical roots are crucial —not just background —for any future settlement. Without addressing them, no truce will last.

This gap between military force and political talks threatens a confrontation between Russia and NATO. The outcome largely relies on the relationship between Western Europe and the U.S., as well as Washington's willingness to manage European developments.

The outlook is therefore sobering. The American desire for quick negotiations is unrealistic. Russia’s vision of a deeper, structural agreement remains distant. The stakes are rising, and the conflict can no longer be reduced to questions of territory alone.

Fyodor Lukyanov is widely recognized as one of the leading Russian experts in international relations and foreign policy.

• He has been involved in journalism since 1990 and has authored numerous publications on contemporary international relations and Russian foreign policy.
• Since 2002, he has served as the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, a magazine established as a platform for dialogue and debate among foreign and Russian experts and policymakers.
• In 2012, he was elected Chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy of Russia, one of Russia's oldest non-governmental organizations.
• Since 2015, he has served as Director of Scientific Work at the Foundation for Development and Support of the Valdai International Discussion Club.
• He is currently a research professor at the Faculty of World Economy and Global Politics at the National Research University Higher School of Economics.

He can be followed on Telegram, and his insights are published in Global Affairs, a Russian journal.

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

NUCLEAR-POWERED MISSILE, UNDERWATER DRONE, AND PROPOSED PAUSE IN UKRAINE CONFLICT: KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM PUTIN’S SPEECH

President Vladimir Putin has met wounded Russian service members and spoken of new cutting-edge additions to the country’s arsenal.

President Vladimir Putin visits a military hospital in Moscow, Russia, on October 29, 2025. © Sputnik / Vyacheslav Pokofyev

HomeRussia & FSU
29 October 2025 17:01

Russian President Vladimir Putin paid a visit to a military hospital in Moscow on Wednesday, where he had the chance to meet with service members wounded in the Ukraine conflict. During his time there, the president shared updates about the frontline situation, highlighting the encirclement of Kiev’s troops in two key areas.

He also discussed testing new technologies, such as advanced nuclear-powered weaponry, including the unlimited-range Burevestnik cruise missile and the impressive Poseidon underwater drone.

Here are the key takeaways from Putin’s speech:

READ MORE: Moscow could pause operations against encircled Ukrainian units – Putin

Moscow is ready to pause the fighting.

The frontline situation has been developing “favorably” for Russia, with the country’s troops actively advancing, the president said. Ukrainian forces have been encircled in Kupyansk and Krasnoarmeysk (Pokrovsk), Putin added, referring to cities in Ukraine’s Kharkov Region and Russia’s Donetsk People’s Republic, respectively.

The president floated the idea of briefly pausing fighting in the two locations to allow Western and Ukrainian journalists in. The proposal has already been discussed with military commanders and Russian Defense Minister Andrey Belousov, Putin added.

The journalists would be able to “check on the state of the encircled Ukrainian troops so that Ukraine’s political leadership can make appropriate decisions regarding the fate of its citizens and military personnel,” the president said.

The trickiest part about the proposal is ensuring the safety of the journalists and preventing a potential provocation by Kiev, he said.

Cruise missile of unlimited range

The Russian president addressed the new Burevestnik cruise missile, a nuclear-powered weapon with unlimited range. It was successfully tested last week, with reports indicating the projectile traveled over 14,000 km.

Putin revealed details about the missile’s nuclear-powered turbojet engine, stating that its power unit “is comparable in output with the reactor of a nuclear-propelled submarine, but it’s 1,000 times smaller.”

               “The key thing is that while a conventional nuclear reactor starts up in hours, days, or even weeks, this nuclear reactor starts up in minutes or seconds. That’s a giant achievement,” the president said.

The nuclear-powered propulsion system could have civilian applications in addition to military use, Putin noted. For instance, it could be applied in the future to “address energy security in the Arctic, and we’ll use it in the lunar program,” he said.

Poseidon underwater drone tested successfully.

Russia successfully tested a nuclear-powered underwater Poseidon drone on Tuesday, Putin revealed. The development of the massive, torpedo-shaped, nuclear-capable drone was first announced in 2018 but has since been shrouded in mystery.

               “For the first time, we succeeded not only in launching it from a carrier submarine using a booster engine but also in starting its nuclear power unit, which propelled the drone for a certain amount of time,” Putin stated.

The device is unrivaled by any other weapon “anywhere in the world when it comes to speed and depth,” the president stressed, adding that an analogous gun is unlikely to be fielded by any other nation soon.

The power of Poseidon greatly surpasses the characteristics of Russia’s upcoming Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), Putin stated, apparently referring to the yield of its nuclear payload.

Sarmat ICBM to be fielded soon.

The Sarmat ICBM itself is expected to enter active duty shortly, the president stated. The missile was first approved for military duty in September 2023 and is set to replace the aging R-36M family of silo-based nuclear-armed ballistic missiles.

The Sarmat reportedly has an estimated range of 11,000 miles (about 18,000 kilometers), with a ten-ton payload.

               “There is no other [missile] like the Sarmat in the world, and we don’t have one on duty yet – it will be on duty soon,” Putin said.

PROF. JOHN MEARSHEIMER | TRUMP VS. PUTIN — THE NEW NUCLEAR STANDOFF HAS BEGUN! URGENT!!!

The Return of Nuclear Brinkmanship: A New Era of Strategic Instability

• In this urgent analysis, Professor John Mearsheimer examines the rising tensions between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin as global nuclear brinkmanship resumes.
• The stability perceived after the Cold War has vanished, placing nuclear deterrence back at the heart of international affairs.
• From Russia’s missile tests capable of carrying nuclear payloads to Trump’s unwavering reactions, this confrontation represents the most perilous strategic phase since the Soviet Union's collapse.
• Mearsheimer highlights how nuclear signaling by Moscow and Washington has reshaped the power balance and explains how the breakdown of arms control treaties heightens the risk of escalation.
• This episode extends beyond Russia and the U.S., signaling a shift toward a multipolar nuclear world that China and other nations are keenly observing.

Learn how deterrence dynamics have transformed and why each threat, response, and word now entails existential danger. This analysis provides a vital warning about the future landscape of great-power rivalry and nuclear stability.

Watch the Video Here (37 minutes, 20 seconds)

Prof. John J. Mearsheimer
R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor
Department of Political Science
University of Chicago
The Mearsheimer Lens
28 October 2025

Calculated Nuclear Signaling: Putin and Trump

Vladimir Putin's nuclear threats are calculated, aiming to sway Washington by reaffirming Russia's nuclear strength. When Donald Trump responded, 'We're not playing games with him either,' it reintroduced nuclear brinkmanship, a tension many thought over.

The Illusion of Post-Cold War Stability

For decades after the Cold War, many Americans believed diplomacy, arms control, and technological superiority eliminated nuclear threats. However, that security has faded. Now, nuclear signaling again plays a key role in international relations.

Putin’s Strategic Messaging

Putin’s nuclear threats clearly show Russia’s capability to strike the U.S. with advanced systems like nuclear cruise missiles. These warnings remind Washington that, despite sanctions and the Ukraine conflict, Russia remains a nuclear superpower capable of devastating consequences.

Trump’s Doctrine of Resolve

Trump’s reaction to Putin’s threats was carefully calculated. His confident tone suggested the U.S. was not uncertain when confronting nuclear threats. Strength is gauged by ability and determination. Nuclear signaling is risky because deterrence relies on credible threats of severe consequences, not mutual agreement.

Fraying Deterrence Frameworks

During the Cold War, Washington and Moscow maintained a stable deterrence system with arms control treaties, communication, and red lines. Now, this is breaking down. The world is multipolar, with more nuclear nations, less trust, and more instability. Many arms agreements have failed or are ignored, leaving power politics as the only reality.

Nuclear Power as the Great Equalizer

Russia can't match the US in economic and military power, but its nuclear arsenal balances this. In a multipolar world, nuclear strength is Moscow’s key equalizer. Putin’s nuclear rhetoric serves as a psychological tool, cautioning Western leaders and emphasizing escalation risks.

Blurred Red Lines and Psychological Warfare

Unlike Cold War deterrence, today’s red lines are vague. Putin’s messages target U.S. policymakers, European publics, NATO leaders, and the global community, aiming to weaken Western cohesion through nuclear threats. Fear is a potent political weapon.

Counter-Signaling and Escalation Risks

Nuclear signaling's effectiveness depends on the adversary's uncertainty or division. Trump's strong response aimed to clarify America's resolve, signaling to Moscow that intimidation would fail and escalation was possible. Matching threats with credible postures increases stakes amid limited diplomacy.

The Multipolar Nuclear Triangle

The nuclear landscape has shifted from a two-party rivalry to a more complex situation, with China emerging as a significant third power. Beijing closely monitors Washington and Moscow. The U.S. responds to Russian threats to deter Russia, show strength to China, and defend its reputation. Russia and China also share interests against a perceived American-led global order, complicating matters further.

Breakdown of Arms Control and Communication

The decline of treaties like the INF, and reduced dialogue between nuclear states, have increased unpredictability in nuclear signaling. Public statements and media now mainly serve as strategic communication means, raising misunderstandings and escalation risks.

Domestic Politics and Volatility

Domestic political motives often cause leaders to use nuclear rhetoric to boost support, rally nationalism, or portray rivals as weak, increasing unpredictability and risk of misjudgments.

The End of Strategic Calm

The era of predictable deterrence has ended. Today, the global nuclear environment is unstable and fragmented, making stability harder to maintain. Instead of diplomacy, threats, military exercises, and missile tests dominate, reflecting actions by leaders like Putin and Trump. This trend indicates increased instability and risk in international relations.

Conclusion

Prof. Mearsheimer examines the rising risks and complexities of nuclear communication in a multipolar world. As arms control weakens, communication channels decline, and domestic instability grows, nuclear deterrence becomes more uncertain and risky. China's rise as a nuclear power and the Russia-China alliance increase global instability. Public threats are increasingly replacing diplomatic measures, signaling heightened instability. 

THE UKRAINE WAR & THE EURASIAN WORLD ORDER

Kindle Edition

by Glenn Diesen

The end of five hundred years of Western dominance comes at the same time as the growing hope of the global majority for a more balanced, multipolar world where every nation is treated with sovereign equality.

This detailed analysis explores the decline of liberal dominance, highlighting that a multipolar Westphalian global order is still in the making, leaving the world in a transitional period. A legal vacuum has emerged, with conflicting parties competing to shape the future global framework.

NATO’s expansion played a major role in promoting liberal values and unity, aiming to strengthen the West’s leadership as a foundation for peace rooted in democracy. Yet, it also caused the breakdown of a unified European security system and pushed the continent toward potential conflicts with few clear ways to reverse course. Ukraine, caught in a divided Europe, has become a key piece in the ongoing strategic competition between NATO and Russia over the last thirty years.

The Ukraine conflict highlights the collapse of the international order, exposing the failure of liberal hegemony in power and legitimacy. It has sparked a proxy clash between the West and Russia instead of bringing peace, its main source of legitimacy.

The proxy warfare, comprehensive sanctions, and efforts to isolate Russia internationally have played a part in reducing the dominance of liberal hegemony, rather than allowing it to bounce back. Many countries have reacted to the conflict by speeding up their move towards a Eurasian-centered world order that moves away from hegemonic and liberal universalist ideas.

The global economic landscape is transforming as countries seek to diversify and move away from overreliance on Western technologies, industries, transportation routes, banking, payment systems, insurance, and currencies. The once-universal ideals rooted in Western values are gradually giving way to recognition of diverse civilizational identities. Sovereign inequality is shifting towards a sense of sovereign equality, social hierarchies are being reexamined through dialogue, and the traditional rules-based international order is evolving with a greater emphasis on international law. A Westphalian global order is making a comeback, now with distinctive Eurasian characteristics that reflect a more inclusive global perspective.

A Western victory over Russia could bring back a unipolar world order, while a Russian win might strengthen a multipolar system. The current international landscape feels very delicate, especially as there's little willingness to find a middle ground — the winner tends to take all. Because of this, both NATO, led by the U.S., and Russia are ready to take significant risks and escalate tensions, and the possibility of nuclear conflict seems more real than ever.

PROF. GILBERT DOCTOROW’S MAIN THESIS IN ‘WAR DIARIES VOLUME 1: THE RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR’

In his latest publication, War Diaries Volume 1: The Russia-Ukraine War, Prof. Gilbert Doctorow offers a critical and analytical perspective on the ongoing conflict.

• His main point is that Western stories about the war are too simplified and biased, often missing complex history, politics, and security issues shaping Russia’s actions.
• He argues that Western media and policymakers often portray Russia only as an aggressor, overlooking NATO expansion, geopolitical tensions, and ethnic Russians' interests in Ukraine.

Doctorow’s diaries offer a different perspective, highlighting the shortcomings of current Western strategies and advocating for more nuanced diplomatic efforts. He stresses the importance of understanding Russia’s motives and the broader context of East-West relations, warning that misunderstandings and misinformation could prolong the conflict and increase the risk of escalation.

Doctorow uses daily entries and insights to urge rethinking Western policies and media narratives, encouraging critical analysis of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

GILBERT DOCTOROW: DEMANDS ORESHNIK STRIKE TO RESTORE DETERRENCE

Professor Glenn Diesen and Professor Gilbert Doctorow discuss Russia's decreasing deterrence regarding Western actions in Ukraine, stressing the need for clear, credible signals to restore stability.

• It reflects Doctorow's perspective that Russia presently holds a temporary strategic advantage, but this could be lost without decisive action.
• The text notes that inconsistent communication from President Putin has weakened Russia’s position and increased the risk of escalation.
• The future is uncertain, with cautious hope for possible changes in Moscow and concerns that reduced deterrence could raise the risk of future conflicts.

Watch the Video Here (39 minutes, 12 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
26 October 2025

Assessing Russia's Deterrence and the Risk of Escalation

The discussion highlights the importance of credible deterrence in Russia's response to Western actions. Inconsistent messaging weakens Russia's position, which currently has an advantage over Europe. Ignoring deterrence could lead to escalation and extreme measures. The conclusion is skeptical about Russia's future, suggesting that weakened deterrence could increase conflict risks and threaten peace, but it remains cautiously optimistic about potential change.

WHY THE UKRAINE CRISIS IS THE WEST’S FAULT

The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin

By John J. Mearsheimer
R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor
Department of Political Science
University of Chicago.
Foreign Affairs September/October 2014
Published on 18 August 2014

Annotated by Abraham A. van Kempen

The Western view sees the Ukraine crisis mainly as Russian aggression, with many officials believing Putin annexed Crimea to restore the Soviet empire and may seek control over Ukraine and Eastern Europe. They view Yanukovych's 2014 ousting as just a pretext for Putin’s actions.

This interpretation is flawed. The US and European allies are mainly responsible for the crisis, with NATO's expansion as the key cause—a strategy to shift Ukraine away from Russia and align it with Western institutions.

The eastward expansion of the EU and Western support for Ukraine’s pro-democracy movement, beginning with the 2004 Orange Revolution, have greatly influenced this dynamic. Since the mid-1990s, Russian leadership has opposed NATO expansion and rejected Ukraine becoming a Western outpost.

President Putin saw the fall of Ukraine’s elected, pro-Russian government—called a “coup”—as the final trigger. He annexed Crimea, fearing it could be a NATO base, and aimed to destabilize Ukraine to block its pro-Western goals.

Putin’s reaction was foreseeable.

Please keep reading … (scroll down to the last article of this edition)

SCOTT HORTON’S CENTRAL THESIS IN PROVOKED AND ITS RELATION TO JOHN J. MEARSHEIMER’S COMMENTARY

Understanding the Roots of Russophobia and the U.S. Role in the Ukraine War

This review explores Scott Horton's 'Provoked,' focusing on U.S. policymakers' role in fostering distrust of Russia and fueling the Ukraine conflict. It references John J. Mearsheimer, noting both see Russophobia and tension escalation as deliberate U.S. strategies, not Russian hostility. The analysis highlights how American foreign policy decisions are key to the Russia-West crisis.

Scott Horton’s book 'Provoked' argues that the U.S. provoked Russia and worsened the Ukraine war. John J. Mearsheimer praises it, calling it "manna from heaven" for understanding Western Russophobia and the U.S. role in sparking the Ukraine conflict.

Scott Horton’s Central Thesis

Horton argues that the U.S., through policies and diplomatic errors since the Cold War, has driven Russia into a new confrontation with the West. He claims the U.S. didn't just respond but actively created conditions leading to the Ukraine conflict and Cold War tensions.

Key elements of Horton’s argument include:

• The eastward expansion of NATO, despite assurances given to Soviet leaders in the early 1990s, was seen by Russia as a direct threat to its security.
• Support for regime changes and color revolutions in the post-Soviet space, especially in Ukraine, increased Russian concerns about Western influence.
• A pattern of “foolish and dishonest behavior” by American policymakers, who repeatedly dismissed Russian concerns and portrayed Russia as an innate adversary, thereby cultivating an atmosphere of mistrust and hostility.

Relation to Mearsheimer’s Commentary

Mearsheimer’s quotation highlights two main points that align closely with Horton’s thesis:

• Horton’s book, as Mearsheimer emphasizes, is crucial for understanding the roots of intense Russophobia in Western politics and media.
• Horton attributes this sentiment not to innate Russian aggression but to a narrative created and propagated by American political elites and institutions.
• He argues that the West’s negative perception of Russia partly stems from its own policies and rhetoric, which have consistently antagonized Russia.
• Both Horton and Mearsheimer agree that the United States was a key actor, not merely a bystander, in the events that led to the Ukraine war.
• Horton’s thorough analysis of American foreign policy mistakes aligns with Mearsheimer’s view that the U.S. played a significant role in triggering the conflict, not only through its support for Ukraine but also by shaping the geopolitical climate that made war likely or unavoidable.

Conclusion

Scott Horton’s thesis in Provoked mirrors Mearsheimer’s review, both emphasizing the U.S.'s provocative role in shaping European security, fostering Russophobia, and linking American policies to the Ukraine conflict. Horton’s documentation supports Mearsheimer’s points, making the book essential for understanding the Russia-West crisis.

EINAR TANGEN: HOW CHINA WON THE ECONOMIC WAR

Einar Tangen, a Senior Fellow at the Teihe Institute and the Canadian Center for International Governance Innovation, explains how China has bolstered its supply chains to withstand economic pressures while maintaining financial influence. He notes China’s restrictions on rare-earth minerals as a key tool, but warns that this could push countries to seek trade partnerships elsewhere.

Watch the Video Here (44 minutes, 51 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
23 October 2025

China, the U.S., and the Changing Global Economic Order: An Interview with Einar Tangen

Welcome back. We are pleased to have Einar Tangen, a fellow at the Teihe Institute and a senior fellow at the Center for International Governance Innovation in Canada, with us. We anticipate an engaging discussion.

Professor Diesen discusses Einar Tangen on the shift from U.S. unipolarity to a multipolar world. The focus is on China's efforts to promote fair governance and diversify finances amid Western sanctions. The analysis shows that China is taking a long-term view, while the U.S. is adopting short-term tactics in response to economic tensions. The conclusion stresses the need to create just, widely accepted rules for the evolving global order, drawing on insights from Tangen, an expert in Asian and global governance.

Expertise on Supply Chain Risks Amid Economic Tensions

Einar Tangen is known for his expertise in supply chain risks amid U.S.-China economic tensions. Recent U.S. export restrictions, like limiting computer chip exports to China, hurt U.S. firms by reducing sales and R&D. China has responded with its own controls and sanctions, especially on rare-earth metals.

The Strategic Importance of Rare Earth Metals

Rare earth metals are vital to technologies such as weaponry, missiles, magnets, and microchips. About 70% are mined in China, which also leads in processing technology by at least a decade. This gives China strategic leverage, especially since the US and Europe lack comparable processing despite having raw materials.

China’s Strategic Approach and the U.S. Response

China’s measured response to U.S. aggression during Trump’s presidency illustrates a strategic long-term approach. While the U.S. often acts without clear goals, China plans steps to maintain stability and avoid exposing its main countermeasures. As tensions rise, China stays patient, ready to respond when needed, but avoids escalation unless provoked.

Military Implications and Resource Dependence

Apart from rare earths, materials such as antimony—key to military use—are mainly processed in China. As Western nations face military conflicts, reliance on Chinese-processed materials poses risks. China’s control over these resources gives it leverage against aggressive U.S. military ambitions.

Potential for Escalation and Strategic Restraint

China remains cautious about asserting dominance over the supply chain, knowing that aggressive actions could prompt the US and allies to boost investments in alternatives, such as Australia, which lacks the necessary processing infrastructure. Unlike Washington's reactive approach, Beijing considers long-term impacts and strategic goals.

The Broader Scope of China’s Economic Leverage

China’s influence extends beyond rare earths to chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and shipping. Many key substances and ingredients are made in China, including by companies like BASF, which moved production to save costs. Disruptions could lead to shortages or higher prices in Western markets.

Furthermore, China’s dominant role in global shipping could raise U.S. logistics costs by restricting access to its fleet, potentially forcing goods to be rerouted through intermediaries.

Weaponizing Trade and the Limits of Decoupling

Although the US seeks to reduce reliance on China and encourage decoupling, supply chains remain intricate and challenging to restructure. China has strengthened its resilience and gained greater influence over vital inputs. Relying heavily on trade as a political strategy can damage trust and lead countries to pursue self-sufficiency and diversification.

European Reactions and the Case of Nexperia

Recent actions by European governments, such as the Dutch seizure of the Chinese semiconductor firm Nexperia, show U.S. influence and efforts to align with American strategies. China’s responses are often seen as “weaponizing supply chains," mostly defensive. A double standard exists: European outrage over Chinese reactions contrasts with silence or acceptance when the U.S. takes similar measures.

Global Power Shifts and the Multipolar World

The global power shift from a unipolar US-led system to a multipolar one challenges norms, allowing the West to enforce sanctions mainly. As influence spreads among various actors, there’s a growing need for universal, standardized rules.

China actively promotes global initiatives on security, development, sovereignty, and multipolar governance to foster respect and cooperation, moving away from colonial legacies and double standards.

Financial Security and Diversification

In response to Western asset seizures and sanctions, China and other nations are diversifying their financial holdings and reducing reliance on the U.S. dollar. This trend is also seen in Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, as countries seek to protect themselves from future asset confiscation.

The Role of U.S. Leadership and Domestic Challenges

Many in China see Trump's strategy as hastening America's decline and fostering Chinese national unity. Some value its clarity but remain cautious about the global repercussions of U.S. mistakes. Anticipating economic disruptions, they focus on essentials like food security.

Conclusion

The enduring economic dispute between the United States and China is expected to persist. China is taking a long-term, strategic stance, while the U.S. relies on short-term strategies and proxies. As the world moves toward a more multipolar order, the main challenge will be to develop fair and stable regulations that correctly mirror the shifting balance of power.

About Einar Tangen

Einar Tangen, director of the Asia Narrative Substack and founder of the “15 Five” group, specializes in risk assessments of China’s five-year plans. He’s affiliated with Canada’s Center for International Governance Innovation, which is known for its global governance efforts. Based in Beijing for 20 years, he provides firsthand insights and was born in Washington, D.C.

CHAS FREEMAN: IMPERIAL OVERSTRETCH - 500 YEARS OF DOMINANCE COME TO AN END

Prof. Glenn Diesen explores with Amb. Chas Freeman, the changing global landscape. It is characterized by:

• American decline
• Regional shifts in the Middle East
• Europe's challenge is defining its role amid increasing uncertainty.

It highlights the U.S.'s declining influence, regional independence, Europe's disagreements, and strategic uncertainty, especially on energy and relations with Russia and China. The analysis criticizes Zionism and European policies toward Palestine, emphasizing the need for the West to adapt strategically to a rapidly changing, multipolar world.

Watch the Video Here (45 minutes, 23 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
25 October 2025

The Decline of Western Dominance: Reflections with Chas Freeman

Welcome back. Today, we are joined by Amb. Chas Freeman, a retired diplomat, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, and former Assistant Secretary of Defense. We will discuss global affairs and the decline of Western influence.

Indicators of Decline in Great Powers

According to Paul Kennedy’s 1987 book, The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, signs of decline include declining industrial output, reduced innovation, loss of trade advantages, worsening infrastructure, excessive military engagements, numerous bases and alliances, rising military costs, nations catching up economically and technologically, and leaders failing to recognize or respond to global changes. This often leads to short-sighted decision-making and institutional decline. These signs are relevant today in the West, including the U.S. and France, with issues like high debt, political polarization, distrust, and disconnect between governments and citizens.

The End of Western Global Dominance

The five-century era of Western dominance is considered over. Today, the West lacks moral authority and cohesion, often dismissing its principles. Post-World War II institutions like the UN and international law are frequently ignored by Western countries, despite being adopted by others like China. China aims to restore respect for international law and the UN Charter, even though these originate outside the American-led post-war order.

Shifting Global Order

The global landscape shows the U.S. reducing its influence as China seeks to sustain it, with efforts to protect World Trade Organization frameworks through regional agreements. This trend diminishes hegemonic dominance, fostering a multinodal system of interconnected relationships rather than unipolar control. While China’s economy grows, it shows little interest in hegemonic leadership, creating a gap on issues like climate change, nonproliferation, arms control, and trade. The U.S. support for Argentina, known for debt defaults, reflects ongoing economic and political instability.

Consequences of Declining Influence

Freeman highlights serious abuses in West Asia, where US and Western support have worsened conflicts, leading only to fragile ceasefires rather than real peace. Kennedy’s framework shows declining great powers face a dilemma: withdraw to keep influence or assert dominance risking collapse.

Political Incoherence and Militarism

Freeman references Emmanuel Todd’s idea of “micro militarism,” where declining nations seek quick military wins or symbolic gestures like restoring historic sites to show they have regained strength. Recent aggressive actions, including threats toward Venezuela and Canada, illustrate this pattern. After the Cold War, many expected lasting peace, but instead, the West has engaged in ongoing conflicts, preferring military solutions over diplomacy.

Misinterpretations and Policy Failures

The Cold War's end was seen as a military win for the West, reinforcing the belief that deterrence guarantees peace over diplomacy. During "unipolarity,” the U.S. saw foreign policy as flexible and undervalued diplomacy, resulting in failed efforts like “maximum pressure" on North Korea and Iran. Additionally, special interest groups caused incoherence and a lack of unified strategy in dealing with complex global issues.

Ceasefires Versus Genuine Peace

President Trump confuses a ceasefire with peace, which is a common mistake. A ceasefire stops hostilities temporarily, but peace resolves root causes of conflict. In places like Israel-Palestine, Ukraine, and Iran, this difference is often overlooked, resulting in fragile, easily disrupted agreements.

The Middle East: American Decline and Regional Realignments

Freeman analyzes the Middle East amid U.S. retreat. Israel heavily depends on U.S. support—financial, military, and political—and its actions are reducing international backing. The region is seeing a slow rapprochement between Gulf Arabs and Iran, ongoing divisions in Lebanon and Syria, and rising Turkish influence. Russia and China are active diplomatically, but won't fully replace U.S. security. Saudi Arabia balances U.S. ties with greater independence. Smaller nations cooperate to uphold trade rules as U.S. leadership wanes.

Europe’s Future in a Multinodal World

Europe faces uncertainty in its relationship with Russia and lacks a unified vision for its future global role. Despite having superpower qualities, progress is hindered by a lack of unity, leadership, and strategic planning. Some leaders, like Viktor Orban, have different views, but these are often dismissed. The weak response to Russia's potential victory in Ukraine and ongoing focus on Russian threats highlight this strategic shortcoming.

U.S. Sanctions and European Energy Dilemmas

Recent U.S. sanctions on Russian oil exports to China and India, along with secondary sanctions affecting Europe, are seen as inconsistent and likely ineffective since India and China are expected to bypass them. Sabotage of European energy infrastructure mirrors self-destructive patterns like Nord Stream 2. Europe’s move away from open trade threatens its economic future, and its lack of unified strategies on trade, investment, and relations with China and Russia highlights current instability.

Reflections on Zionism and European Policy

The origins of Zionism as a Christian idea are examined, showing how the movement now departs from humane religious principles. Israel’s declining support among Jews abroad and ongoing suppression of criticism in countries like Germany highlight the complex and contentious European policy towards Palestine.

Conclusion: Navigating Historical Change

The discourse ends with reflections on this epoch's significance: the decline of global dominance and the rise of a multipolar world. While initiatives like China’s Greater Eurasian Initiative offer hope for cooperation, sentiments remain ambiguous, and understanding is limited. Europe and the West are stuck in outdated fears and are unaware of significant changes. Freeman suggests Kaiser Kuo’s essay, 'What the West Can Learn from China,' for strategic insights. Ultimately, the West must find new ways to promote its interests and global progress, accepting that it is no longer the world leader.

DOES TRUMP’S GAZA PLAN STOP ISRAEL’S AGENDA FOR THE PALESTINIANS? | THE BOTTOM LINE

• US journalist Chris Hedges cautions that Trump’s Gaza strategy could fail like the Oslo Accords, potentially concluding after the initial phase.
• He tells host Steve Clemons there's no guarantee the US-backed deal will stop Israel from pursuing a 'genocidal project' in Gaza and the West Bank.
• Despite US officials visiting Israel to support the ceasefire, Israel continued restricting food and medicine to millions of Palestinians.
• Israeli forces continued occupying over half of Gaza.

Watch the Video Here (24 minutes, 03 seconds)

Host: Steve Clemons
Al Jazeera English
26 October 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading

A Free Trial for Life – SUBSCRIBE NOW!

• It's quick and straightforward.

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

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

• Please include your First and Last Name.

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

_________________________

Related Articles Recently Posted on www.buildingthebridgefoundation.com:

OUR FRIDAY NEWS ANALYSIS

OUR WEDNESDAY NEWS ANALYSIS

OUR MONDAY EDITION

________________________

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