The Friday Edition

Our Friday News Analysis | What the World Reads Now!

December 11, 2025

Helping to Heal a Broken Humanity (Part 64)

The Hague, 12 December 2025 | If you know of a decisive story, tell the world! We're still searching.

EDITORIAL | “The Best Way to Predict the Future is to Create It" (Part 28)

EDITORIAL | Fly a Kite and Get Lost!

By Abraham A. van Kempen
12 December 2025

Forgive me. I am paraphrasing – not directly quoting – President Trump. I’ve never told anyone “to fly a kit and get lost.” This is one of the happiest weeks of my life. My final eye surgeries are done. My eyes are healing. The latest doctor’s reports look good. Next week, I’ll be home for Christmas after eight months stranded away from home with eye surgery complications.

But I want to share another reason with you why I’m so happy this week. The United States of America finally told Europe to fly a kit and get lost, much to the chagrin of the Carnegy Foundation. Read their article below.

Most people are clueless about this week’s significance in Washington, D.C., and around the world’s capitals. Right now, I’m physically unable to expound on this exciting subject. It will be the subject of future editions, I promise.

Here’s a hint. The U.S. will no longer serve as the EU neocons' scapegoat, their Grand Enforcer of Eurocentric egocentricity. Mr. Trump understands that the world is changing. The Neo-colonialists in Europe are still obsessed with shaping and controlling the economies of the world in their image. Forget it! The world has matured. All of humanity rejects the EU’s neo-colonial impulses:

What is Ours is Ours.
What is Yours is Ours Also.
It’s Our Way or the Highway.
You’re Either For Us or Against Us.
If you’re Not For Us, You’re Dead Meat.

Will Sunshine Break Through the Clouds? YES! As soon as Ukraine kicks out the EU and NATO, Ukraine will have won the war – not against Russia; against the oligarchs of Europe. I know it’s too much of a bitter bill to swallow. You will understand, soon, I promise. For now, enjoy the sunshine.

One more clue: this week’s culmination of everything that happened since 2004 is Shakespearean, ranging from a comedy of tragedies to a tragedy of comedies. Go figure!

Life is theatre. We’re heading in the right direction.

Enjoy your weekend.

Abraham A. van Kempen
Senior Editor

Building – not burning – the Bridge Foundation, The Hague
A Way to Get to Know Each Other and the Other

Remember! Diplomacy is catalytic—transformative —while military action is cataclysmic—destructive and catastrophic.

When faced with the options to be good, bad, or ugly, let’s build bridges, not burn them. After all, mutual deterrence reigns.

‘THE EU HAS TURNED EUROPE INTO A CONTINENT THAT’S BRAIN-DEAD’— ADRIEL KASONTA, POLITICAL RISK CONSULTANT AND LAWYER

In the latest episode of The Sanchez Effect, Rick and Adriel dive into the recent messages from the White House.

The takeaway is clear: ready or not, the EU is on its own now.

Watch the Video Here (46 minutes, 47 seconds)

Host: Rick Sanchez
HomeShowsSanchez Effect
8 December 2025

Mr. Kasonta says signs have been around, but Europeans are complacent, seeing America as a welfare favorite. Trump urges them to mature and become independent, like a parent advising a child. Instead of accepting this, they throw tantrums.

Instead of supporting Trump’s peace efforts, they stick to their traditional war approach. Adriel notes that neocons are so committed to their anti-Russia stance that they prefer to ignite the continent rather than abandon their obsession.

What’s in it for them?

Adriel Kasonta reveals the answer.

DOUGLAS MACGREGOR: U.S. PIVOTING AWAY FROM UKRAINE, EUROPE & NATO

Douglas MacGregor, a retired Colonel and combat veteran, also served as a former senior advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Defense Colin Powell. He contends that the new National Security Strategy indicates a shift in US focus away from Ukraine, Europe, and NATO.

Watch the Video Here (43 minutes, 51 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
10 December 2025

Prof. Glenn Diesen’s talk with Col. Douglas MacGregor highlights overlooked issues, noting that political leaders and journalists often see the EU as the solution. Despite ongoing debates and uncertainties, resistance to some measures shows that the situation remains stable. The conversation ends with mutual respect.

In summary, while many view the European Union as a potential solution to these complex issues, opinions remain divided. The ongoing debate underscores the challenges in finding consensus, and it is uncertain how things will develop in the future.

Moving forward, encourage stakeholders to have open, heartfelt conversations to foster shared understanding. Prioritizing collaboration and transparency will help us develop lasting solutions that address everyone's diverse concerns.

SCOTT RITTER | THE U.S. NOW CONSIDERS THE EU AN ENEMY

Prof. Glenn Diesen and Scott Ritter explore the widening gap between Europe and the United States, emphasizing how U.S. strategic priorities are moving away from Europe and toward other regions.
It examines the potential outcomes of these shifts, such as Europe becoming more divided and less influential on the global stage, unless it reevaluates its alliances and stance toward Russia and Eurasia.
Ritter raises concerns about the decline of transatlantic relations and offers a pessimistic view of Europe's prospects unless substantial changes occur.

Watch the Video Here (49 minutes, 49 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
10 December 2025

Scott Ritter is a former Major, Intelligence Officer, US Marine, and UN Weapons Inspector.

Ritter argues that the new US National Security Strategy confirms that the EU is now considered an enemy.

EUROPE NEEDS TO HEAR WHAT AMERICA IS SAYING

The Trump administration has slammed the EU’s political and social policies, claiming they are undermining Europe’s identity. The stark language of the new U.S. security strategy helps Europeans to recognize new realities and to devise their own response.

Source: Getty

By Judy Dempsey
Carnegy Endowment.org
9 December 2025

Despite claims by European officials, U.S. President Donald Trump’s new National Security Strategy (NSS) is actually positive for Europe. It shows how little this U.S. administration values Europe and the world, making pretense impossible.

The NSS hasn't focused on European values, democracy, or principles since WWII. Instead, it centers on projecting power for American economic interests—end of story.

In foreign policy, that view of power relies on a transactional approach benefiting Americans and authoritarian regimes. For these regimes, conditionality now focuses on delivering goods and stability rather than human rights, which is a European standard. The NSS states: “The United States will prioritize commercial diplomacy.”

The Middle East and other regions can maintain their traditions and cultures if they don't threaten the U.S. The NSS states: “The key to successful relations with the Middle East is accepting the region, its leaders, and its nations as they are, while collaborating on shared interests.”

This news isn't unfavorable for tech-savvy Taiwan, vital for American AI firms, but vulnerable to Chinese saber-rattling. The NSS stresses that "deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by maintaining military superiority, is a priority," and states, “The United States does not endorse any unilateral changes to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.”

It’s a different matter for Europe, America’s post–1945 ally and the backbone of the Western alliance during the Cold War. The NSS’s section on Europe doesn’t pull punches.

The strategy states the US isn't interested in NATO, calling it not a “perpetually expanding alliance.” This may please Russia, which opposes expansion, but could disappoint Ukraine and other hopeful members.

The NSS calls on Europe to take “primary responsibility for its own defense, without being dominated by any adversarial power.” That possible adversarial power is not stated.

The desire to cut NATO commitments aligns with a Pentagon report indicating that U.S. officials told Europeans to take on most NATO defense roles—such as intelligence and missile systems—by 2027. This plan to reduce European responsibilities will probably be part of the upcoming National Defense Strategy, as Secretary of War Pete Hegseth mentioned.

The NSS criticizes Europeans for lacking confidence in Russia, noting they have a significant hard power edge over Russia, except for nuclear arms, despite viewing Russia as a threat. The US could help restore stability across Eurasia.

Europe finds this problematic. The strategy claims that "a core interest” for the US is to “reestablish strategic stability with Russia" and support Ukraine's post-conflict reconstruction for its survival as a functioning state. Many Europeans doubt this sincerity and oppose a security framework involving Russia across Europe. They see it as a Kremlin aim to detach Europe from Washington and weaken NATO.

The strategy focuses on identity politics, drawing on far-right civilizational rhetoric from the Trump era. It suggests some NATO members could become majority non-European within decades, raising questions about whether 'non-European' refers to non-white groups or those not aligning with European values.

The document supports Europe, but not in the way most of the EU promotes a liberal, diverse Europe. Instead, it advocates for Europe to restore its civilizational confidence and move away from excessive regulation. It criticizes the EU and transnational groups for actions weakening liberty and sovereignty, such as divisive migration policies, censorship, opposition suppression, declining birthrates, and erosion of national identities and self-confidence.

Europe faces issues such as low self-confidence, an insecure strategy, and an overly reliance on the US, while ignoring far-right concerns. Its leadership hesitates to tackle core post–Cold War issues, undermining credibility and reducing critiques of the NSS to rhetoric.

Amid Europe's vulnerability, Trump and Vice President Vance aim to weaken it further. The administration sees Europe as a threat, and Vance’s disdain for its democratic values and support for far-right groups risk undermining the Western alliance. Europe must respond to this challenge.

GILBERT DOCTOROW | U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY EMBRACES KISSINGER-STYLE STRATEGY

Dr. Gilbert Doctorow discusses the influence of Kissinger’s thinking on the new US National Security Strategy (NSS 2025).

Watch the Video Here (52 minutes, 09 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
9 December 2025

Prof. Glenn Diesen and Prof. Gilbert Doctorow discuss international relations, balancing engagement with Russia and the risk of pushing it toward China. They critique hegemonic strategies that limit diplomacy. The discussion covers European views on NATO, decoupling, and European civilization's decline, with reactions to Trump's policies. It also examines Henry Kissinger's legacy, including his controversial Vietnam War actions, relationships with Russia and China, and opposition to Russia joining NATO in the 1990s.

Understanding this historical perspective is vital for grasping the current tensions and policy choices impacting transatlantic relations. Kissinger’s sophisticated diplomatic method, especially his focus on realpolitik, still shapes discussions on managing the changing interactions among great powers. His legacy is debated, but it highlights the significance of strategic foresight in global politics.

Moreover, these debates are influenced by the close link between economic interests and geopolitical considerations. European leaders recognize the need to balance security and financial stability, as energy dependencies and shifting alliances complicate policy choices. This underscores the challenge of creating a cohesive strategy to address immediate threats and long-term issues.

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

US AMB. JACK MATLOCK | NATO EXPANSION, COUP, AND SUBVERSION OF UKRAINE STARTED THE WAR

Prof. Glenn Diesen examines with the retired US Amb. Jack Matlock perceived double standards in international relations concerning acts of aggression, particularly the Ukraine war.

It compares it with earlier actions by the U.S. and NATO in Iraq and Libya.
It raises concerns about the confiscation of Russian assets and questions Germany's current military goals, especially considering its dependence on Russian trade and energy.
The discussion ends with doubts about the effectiveness and prudence of these Western policies.

Watch the Video Here (42 minutes, 16 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
10 December 2025

Jack F. Matlock, Jr., served as the U.S. Ambassador to the USSR from 1987 to 1991 and played a crucial role in ending the Cold War.

He explains how NATO expansion undermined the idea of a Common European Home, how the attack on Yugoslavia transformed NATO from a defensive alliance into something else, and how the coup and subversion in Ukraine led to the war.

TRUMP UKRAINE PEACE PLAN UPDATES

From Draft to Deadlock: Recent Twists in U.S.-Led Negotiations

Trump Ukraine Peace Plan

By Paulo Fernando de Barros
https://dunapress.org

9 December 2025

Trump Ukraine Peace Plan: Latest Developments and Rejections Since November 2025

Since the November 23, 2025, article on Trump’s Ukraine peace plan, proposed peace talks between Russia and Ukraine have changed drastically. What was once a detailed 28-point draft now faces heated debate with revisions, rejections, and accusations.

The leaked Trump-Ukraine peace plan included territorial, military, and economic measures. Recent rifts among Washington, Kyiv, Moscow, and European allies threaten its success. As of December 9, 2025, Zelensky has refused to cede territory, and Trump has criticized him for undermining negotiations.

The Trump-Ukraine peace plan aimed to address sovereignty, security, and economic growth in a unified approach. It proposed affirming Ukraine’s independence, a non-aggression pact, limiting NATO expansion, capping Ukraine’s military at 600,000 troops, and blocking Ukraine from joining NATO. It also offered U.S. security guarantees with conditions, discussed Ukraine's EU prospects, and included reconstruction funding from frozen Russian assets.

Russia could benefit from easing sanctions, reintegrating into the economy, and recognizing Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk as Russian territories. The plan includes maintaining current lines in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, creating a demilitarized zone, exchanging prisoners, granting amnesty, starting cultural programs, holding Ukrainian elections within 100 days, and forming a peace council led by Trump to enforce these measures. It begins with an immediate ceasefire. This strategy, obtained by Axios, aims for a quick resolution.

After the article’s release, doubts arose. On November 25, 2025, Trump hesitated to set firm deadlines for Russia and Ukraine, showing flexibility amid criticism that the plan favored Russia. Reports said the U.S. proposal included elements from a Russian document, raising concerns about fairness. Experts from CSIS noted Trump pressured Ukraine to accept the 28-point deal, seen as pro-Russian and lacking clear enforcement. By November 26, news of secret U.S.-Russian negotiations in Abu Dhabi emerged, indicating behind-the-scenes talks.

Zelensky’s Firm Rejection of the Trump Ukraine Peace Plan

Ukraine rejects key parts of the Trump-Ukraine peace plan, with President Zelensky affirming no territory will be surrendered. He emphasizes that peace must be “real” and secure, while his team explores alternative solutions with European partners.

In response to the original 28-point plan, Ukraine presented a revised 19-point proposal, removing provisions that would reduce its military by 70%, permanently drop NATO ambitions, and transfer control of the entire Donbas region. The counteroffer also includes an agreement to cap Ukraine’s armed forces at 800,000 troops, with the final specifics to be negotiated directly between Trump and Zelensky.

Ukraine opposes territorial concessions, NATO exclusion, and vague security guarantees. Zelensky’s firm stance on Donbas makes a quick agreement with Moscow unlikely, as Russia demands recognition of its annexations. On December 9, 2025, Zelensky announced that Ukraine and Europe would submit a revised proposal to the U.S., stressing that progress depends on Russia ceasing the bloodshed.

Trump has taken this matter seriously. In recent interviews, including with Politico, he accused Zelensky of hindering the peace process, claiming the Ukrainian leader hadn’t read the plan while Putin had. Trump highlighted Russia’s stronger position, stressed Ukrainian elections, and accused Kyiv of misusing U.S. funds. He warned Zelensky to “come to grips with reality," saying Ukraine has “lost” and no clear path to victory. This rhetoric has intensified tensions, with Trump criticizing Zelensky and claiming Russia holds the advantage.

Russia’s Stance and Potential Rejection

Russia’s response to Trump's Ukraine peace plan is cautious and strategic. While publicly distancing itself, Moscow, via officials like Lavrov, maintains that any change from previous drafts, such as the Anchorage proposal, is unacceptable. Russia intends to reject the revised 19-point plan but remains open to dialogue to prevent alienating Trump. This strategy includes vague statements and leaks to prolong negotiations while advancing militarily.

Critics like ex-Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba say the Trump-Ukraine peace plan is likely “dead." Trump still advocates it, risking Russia seizing more territory. Project Syndicate sees the plan as favoring Russia, aligning with Putin’s goals of expansion and limiting Ukraine. A October Trump-Putin discussion led the U.S. to avoid giving Ukraine Tomahawk missiles, shifting strategic balance. Trump’s sanctions on Russian oil firms like Lukoil and Rosneft cut revenues by 27-35%, applying economic pressure but not forcing concessions.

Recent battlefield developments have solidified Russia’s position. Pokrovsk is now surrounded and on the verge of falling, marking a pivotal moment that enhances Moscow’s bargaining power. Ukraine’s deployment of ATACMS missiles deep into Russian territory has drawn little reaction, indicating Russia’s preference for consolidating gains over escalation. Dmitry Medvedev cautioned that seizing frozen Russian assets might trigger war, and he suggested that the EU could be liable for reparations.

European Pushback and Broader Implications

Europe criticizes the Trump-Ukraine peace plan, upset that it expects the continent to fund $100 billion in rebuilding, while the U.S. claims half the benefits without investing. Leaders like German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stress Europe’s ability to handle security independently and dismiss U.S. efforts to exert control. European advisors in London developed a counterproposal calling for strong U.S. guarantees, such as Article 5, and financial contributions. This shows concern that the plan could weaken EU unity and NATO solidarity.

Public sentiment in Ukraine shifted, with 70% now supporting peace, up from 20% in 2022, indicating war fatigue. Yet ambiguities in Trump's Ukraine peace plan—such as unclear security guarantees and reliance on written agreements—echo the failed 1994 Budapest Memorandum, eroding trust. The Atlantic analysts describe Trump’s approach as pendulum-like, swinging back to Moscow with calls to give up eastern land and ban NATO.

The future of the Trump-Ukraine peace plan is uncertain. Trump says the revised version is almost ready with a few issues, but envoys like Keith Whitcoff and Mike Driscoll keep shuttle diplomacy going. Ukraine’s counter-proposal awaits U.S. review, and Russia may reject it, risking extension into 2026. Economic factors, such as NATO seizing Russian shadow fleet ships, might speed up negotiations, but territorial disputes remain the main obstacle.

As negotiations stall, the human toll rises. The Trump-Ukraine peace plan, once bold, risks more conflict if it is unfair. Al Jazeera reports progress on a revised plan giving Ukraine more concessions, but doubts remain. Fletcher School experts criticize its inexperience and optimism. The focus is on whether sanctions and battlefield realities can close the gaps.

Over more than two weeks, the Trump-Ukraine peace plan developed from an initial promising draft into a contentious issue. Zelensky’s opposition, Trump’s persistent demands, Russia's stubbornness, and Europe’s hopes highlight the complex challenges of reaching peace. As negotiations continue, the world watches to see whether diplomacy can bridge these divides.

Please share your thoughts in the comments, and explore more insights in our Journal and Magazine. Please consider becoming a subscriber.

Thank you: https://dunapress.org/subscriptions – Follow J&M Duna Press on social media. Join the Oslo Meet by connecting experiences and uniting solutions: https://oslomeet.org

References

https://dunapress.org/trump-28-point-peace-plan-for-ukraine-and-russia/– Original article on the 28-point plan (November 23, 2025)

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-peace-plan-ukraine-drew-russian-document-sources-say-2025-11-26/– US peace plan drew from Russian document (November 26, 2025)

https://www.axios.com/2025/11/20/trump-ukraine-peace-plan-28-points-russia– Trump’s full 28-point plan (November 20, 2025)

https://www.csis.org/analysis/unfinished-plan-peace-ukraine-provision-provision– CSIS analysis on the plan (November 24, 2025)

https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/russia-ukraine-us-peace-plan-trump-11-25-25– Ukraine war news, Trump backs away from deadline (November 25, 2025)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/28/28-point-peace-plan-ukraine-trump-putin– Plan may be dead (November 28, 2025)

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/trumps-28-point-peace-plan-will-invite-the-next-war/– Plan invites next war (November 21, 2025)

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/11/26/russia-ukraine-peace-plan-whats-the-latest-version-after-us-kyiv-talks– Latest version after US-Kyiv talks (November 26, 2025)

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-holds-secret-meetings-russians-abu-dhabi-ukraine/story?id=127840867– Secret meetings in Abu Dhabi

https://www.project-syndicate.org/onpoint/trump-s-ukraine-peace-plan-means-more-war– Plan means more war (Recent)

https://fletcher.tufts.edu/news-media-mentions/all-news/peace-plan-presented-us-ukraine-reflects-inexperienced-unrealistic– Inexperienced plan (November 25, 2025)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War– Wikipedia entry on the Russo-Ukrainian War for broader context (Grokipedia equivalent)

DEBATE: WAR OF ATTRITION

Glenn Diesen Versus Silicon Curtain with Mario Nawfal

How will history judge NATO, the EU, the US, and Russia?
The debate addresses the escalating dangers and complexities of the Russia-Ukraine war, emphasizing both the strategic maneuvers by NATO and Russia and the devastating human toll, especially inflicted upon Ukrainian troops.
While some question NATO's true motives and the prospects for meaningful support to Ukraine, concerns remain about the potential destruction of Ukrainian society.

Watch the Video Here (61 minutes, 02 seconds)

Host and Moderator: Mario Nawfal
Marionawfal.com
7 December 2025

Prof. Glenn Diesen and Journalist Silicon Curtain debated the NATO–Russia proxy war that is destroying Ukraine.

Prof. Diesen asserts that extensive evidence shows Western leaders were aware that NATO expansion would provoke a security rivalry with Russia and reinstate Cold War dynamics, with Ukraine serving as the final red line.

Once NATO ousted Yanukovych and installed a new government, conflict was likely. In 2022, NATO nations halted diplomacy and supplied weapons, turning the conflict into a proxy war that Russia sees as existential. This has made a brutal war of attrition the most probable outcome.

If this conflict persists much longer, there is a danger of Ukraine's destruction and the potential for a nuclear conflict between NATO and Russia.

Those who oppose these disastrous policies are branded as “repeating Kremlin talking points," preventing any possibility of course correction.

Debate on the Russia-Ukraine War: Causes, Dynamics, and Prospects

Complex Origins and Misconceptions about the War

The idea that Russia started the war in Ukraine solely for land is debated. The conflict’s root causes are complex. The suffering is undeniable, but claims that NATO genuinely supports Ukraine are undeniable.

Some believe NATO aims to weaken Russia by using Ukraine as cannon fodder, provoking Russia's nightly bombings of Ukrainian regions. They argue NATO's role is less about support and more about challenging Russia, sacrificing Ukrainians.

Recent Developments and Efforts Toward Peace

The negotiation remains stalled with no progress on territorial issues or crisis, as talks only reaffirm current positions. Inconsistent diplomatic efforts, including canceled or delayed meetings between Russian, Ukrainian, and Western representatives, worsen the situation.

Historical Context: The Roots of the Conflict

The roots of the conflict go back thirty years, stemming from the failure to create a unified European security system. Missed chances for peaceful solutions led to a territorial dispute with Russia, which has placed increasingly difficult demands on Ukraine. External influence, especially from the United States, is expected to grow, while Russia's expanding influence may push Ukraine toward concessions.

Defining Victory and the Nature of the War

Russia's victory is portrayed as a war of attrition, focusing on exhausting Ukraine prior to territorial gains. The conflict is viewed less as a boundary issue and more as a move to limit NATO's presence in Ukraine. Following Ukraine's rejection of neutrality, Russia responded by annexing more territories, escalating the conflict further.

Support, Attrition, and the Question of NATO’s Involvement

The role of NATO is debated, with critics claiming its actions haven't significantly helped Ukraine or matched Ukrainian wishes. Since 2014, support for NATO membership has been lukewarm, and the US is accused of weakening peace agreements and using Ukraine in its rivalry with Russia.

Debate over the Maidan and US Influence

The debate over 2014 remains ongoing. Some see Maidan as a spontaneous, large-scale movement unlikely to have been manipulated by the US. Others believe that the US and NATO orchestrated widespread protests to serve geopolitical interests. While most agree that the US had some involvement, opinions differ on how much influence it exerted. The discussion also considers previous US activities in Ukraine and whether external or internal factors mainly drove the protests.

Ongoing War of Attrition and Future Prospects

The war remains deadlocked, with Ukraine facing resource and manpower constraints. This extended attritional stage highlights the limits of military action and emphasizes the need for diplomatic solutions.

Amid debates, the focus remains on how civil society and grassroots initiatives rebuild trust and social cohesion. Community projects, cultural exchanges, and educational programs are vital to Ukraine's recovery, bridging divides and fostering a shared future. Though smaller than government efforts, these initiatives support healing and reconciliation.

In this context, the importance of international mediators and the diplomatic community is even greater. Their collective efforts to promote dialogue, provide technical support, and oversee compliance with upcoming agreements are essential for guiding the peace process. By establishing open communication channels and involving all key stakeholders, the likelihood of achieving a lasting resolution is significantly increased.

When the Ukrainian people come to see that NATO has been using them as expendable cannon fodder, they might feel inspired to stand up for themselves, remove Zelensky’s government, and reject the EU.

GUEST EDITORIAL | THE NEW US NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY HONORS THOSE WHO CHALLENGED WASHINGTON, BUT EXPECTS ALLIES TO CONTINUE OBEYING.

Western Europe’s establishment has betrayed the interests of European citizens to the US – and is now facing the consequences.

US President Donald Trump. © Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

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

Annotated by Abraham A. van Kempen

HomeWorld News
8 December 2025

The US, the world's most potent military, released a new National Security Strategy (NSS). While intended to boost US security, it often makes other countries feel less secure.

This is predictable: in Latin America, the unofficial 'Monroe Doctrine' in Washington, promising more U.S. aggression, won’t surprise or please you. But in Taiwan, a step back from Biden's brinkmanship against China might relieve you from Ukraine's suffering.

In Trump 2.0 America, many anxious governments are US allies or partners, acting as vassals. Ironically, this is positive, offering a reality check for alarmed elites and governments. The more intense their alarm, the more effective the reality check. For those overwhelmed with Russophobia and war hysteria, any reality reminder is beneficial.

Meanwhile, key governments like Russia and China, familiar with Washington's hostility and aggression—via proxy wars, covert ops, ideological subversion, or economic warfare—may see grounds for cautious optimism. Once seen as rivals and enemies to be overthrown, Beijing and Moscow might perceive a different tone.

The authenticity and sustainability of the new American tone are uncertain, given Trump’s volatility and the US's pattern of deception. Only time will show if the 2025 National Security Strategy addresses America's worst old habits. While success is not guaranteed, exploring détente and cooperation remains wise.

Read more
Trump has shattered the European liberal illusion.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov responded to the new NSS by acknowledging the Trump administration's significant differences from previous ones. He noted that its foreign policy moves align with Russia's views, seeing this as an opportunity to pursue constructive efforts to resolve the situation in Ukraine peacefully. Peskov approved of the strategy’s stance against NATO expansion and conflict, highlighting its focus on dialogue and relations. However, he warned that despite its positive tone, the American “deep state” could still act unpredictably or worse.

This contrasts with late-Soviet leaders Gorbachev and Shevardnadze's enthusiasm, who trusted Washington's talk. Moscow knows American bad faith; naive trust is gone and won’t return. Russia, now stronger after its victory in Ukraine, can cautiously seek new opportunities.

Let’s review the historical background. The U.S. presidential executive branch has produced this type of official NSS for nearly forty years.

Their primary purposes are twofold: to convey a US president’s priorities to international and domestic audiences, including other parts of the American government. While the impact of National Security Strategies has varied, they can be a powerful tool. When used intentionally, they can become what a Fox News commentator called “the premier document,” guiding defense and foreign policy.

Initially meant to be released annually, National Security Strategies have often been delayed or absent. We now review 20 of these documents, starting with the first, in 1986, at the end of the Cold War. Over time, they reflect changing global conditions and American priorities.

Many past National Security Strategies have been forgotten because they lacked innovation and were not alarming by US standards. However, some, like the 2002 strategy, are notable. That year’s document formalized the Bush Doctrine—a harmful neocon approach with unilateral action, regime change, preemptive war, and strong support for Israel, leading to millions of lives lost.

Read more
Kremlin responds to new US foreign policy plan.

In 2010, the Obama administration emphasized "democracy promotion" (often meaning regime change) and counterinsurgency, using a hearts-and-minds approach to enforce submission through modernization. The 2017 National Security Strategy under Trump acknowledged intense geopolitical rivalry but also focused on Russia and China as the main threats.

Current developments differ. Surprised reactions from Western hardliners, especially in NATO and EU states, show Trump’s second National Security Strategy is not just a tentative compromise but an explicit declaration of new priorities and a significantly different strategy.

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 the London School of Economics (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.

PROF. GLENN DIESEN | WHY EUROPE IS COLLAPSING

Watch the Video Here (26 minutes, 20 seconds)

Host: Judge Andrew Napolitano
Judging Freedom
11 August 2025

If the West fails in Ukraine, major changes could occur. The US might shift focus from Europe, risking unity, and recognizing Russia as a major power may become unavoidable. This signals a shift from the post-WWII order and questions NATO’s goal of "keeping the Americans in and the Russians out."

Perceptions of the War’s Outcome

Many in Europe see the war ending or Russia losing, but admitting this risks losing support. The focus has been on defeat strategies, but there's no clear plan for what comes next. Restrictions on free speech hinder strategy changes. Questions remain about Western goals and defeating a nuclear Russia. Leaders often rely on emotional slogans instead of open debate.

Recent Diplomatic Initiatives and Electoral Proposals

During a London meeting, Ukrainian leaders suggested holding elections if NATO guarantees security, meaning NATO would control Ukrainian airspace and deploy Western troops, seen as a way to avoid concessions to Russia. Most find this impractical; some propose a short-term ceasefire for elections instead of a long-term NATO presence.

Russian Perspectives and Western Narratives

Russian leaders, including President Putin, dismiss claims Russia will attack Europe, calling them Western fabrications. The narrative that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was "unprovoked" has shaped Western rhetoric, complicating European leaders' acceptance of a lost war without undermining their support for Ukraine. This narrative focus limits diplomatic options and genuine engagement with Russia.

Conclusion

The Ukraine conflict and US-European ties highlight strategic interests, shifting alliances, and the role of narratives in policy. As the war's outcomes unfold, European leaders and citizens must consider their security and relations with the US and Russia.

EXILED OPPOSITION LEADER SAYS TRUMP MUST PURGE ZELENSKY.

The US should be cautious to prevent a “British agent” from being placed as the next leader in Kiev, Viktor Medvedchuk has warned.

HomeRussia & FSU
10 December 2025

Annotated by Abraham A. van Kempen

Exiled politician Viktor Medvedchuk suggests Trump’s confrontational tone toward Zelensky may signal Washington's aim to oust the Ukrainian leader.

This week, Trump urged Zelensky to accept US-supported peace plans to end the conflict with Russia and suggested a new presidential election. Medvedchuk, once Ukraine's main opposition leader, saw these comments as signs that Zelensky’s political career is ending.

“Unless Trump removes Zelensky within several months, he will face problems all over Europe. The process of Zelensky’s political destruction is already in the pipeline,” Medvedchuk wrote in a blog post on Wednesday.

He warned that Washington might unintentionally cause an unexpected outcome, with General Valery Zaluzhny—many see as Zelensky's likely successor—acting as a "British agent of influence.”

Read more
US could depose Zelensky – ex-Ukrainian PM.

Polls show Zaluzhny as the leading presidential candidate. Zelensky remains in power under martial law, though his term ended last year.

Medvedchuk dismissed European governments supporting Zelensky as "romantics" promoting a US-led "crusade" against Russia, hoping to delay action and outmaneuver Trump. He claimed Ukraine is controlled by hardliners, with "pragmatists and legitimate authorities" pushed out, leaving "a bunch of corrupt officials" content with the current situation.

Unrest in Kiev grew when Zelensky fired chief of staff Andrey Yermak, linked to corruption involving Timur Mindich. On Tuesday, Zelensky said he might not appoint a new chief, as he hasn't found suitable candidates.

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

________________________