The Monday Edition

Our Monday News Analysis | What the World Reads Now!

May 11, 2026

Helping to Heal a Broken Humanity (Part 86)

The Hague, 11 May 2026 | If you know of a decisive story, tell the world! We're still searching.

Peace Begins In Your Hearts
https://evangelicalpope.substack.com/p/peace-begins-in-your-hearts

Building the Bridge Foundation

For many years, The Evangelical Pope’s reflections were shared in the Monday edition of Building the Bridge. We are now pleased to continue this journey through a dedicated Substack publication: The Evangelical Saint Pope John Paul II.

Published twice weekly, these reflections draw on the life and teachings of Saint Pope John Paul II, offering thoughtful insights into faith, peace, human dignity, and the deeper questions shaping our world today.

This week’s reflection: “Peace Begins In Your Hearts.”

https://evangelicalpope.substack.com/p/peace-begins-in-your-hearts

Click here for Part 1

Click here for Part 48

EDITORIAL | SHIFT IN GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

By Abraham A. van Kempen
11 May 2026

You've likely observed shifts in global leadership. Western nations often project unipolar power through military force, whereas the BRICS nations emphasize resilience, innovation, cooperation, and sustainability in a multipolar world order. This indicates that numerous non-Western countries are emerging as collaborative options, contributing to a more diverse and balanced international landscape.

Be honest! Wouldn’t you prefer to be on the side of resilience, innovation, cooperation, and sustainability, alongside the other 7.7 billion people on the planet? Shouldn’t the West welcome, encourage, and advance democracy with resilience, innovation, cooperation, and sustainability for all?

Who is right, 1) the 7.7 billion people who want resilience, innovation, cooperation, and sustainability, or 2) around 300 million Westerners who want to rule them with peace through strength? I am freely factoring in that 70 percent of the West wants to live and let live rather than kill or be killed, and reject Western hegemony.

Certainly, you empathize with the world’s majority who detest being tyrannized by a Western minority.

Mind Your Own Business

Last week, I started the Editorial with: “Can the Western-led spirit—known for its creativity, restlessness, and ambitious drive—rediscover its vitality without slipping into self-destruction or nihilism? The answer should be yes. Civilizations revive through memory, innovation, courage, and a balanced pride in their identity. Healthy, even passionate critique, has its place. Confidence – believing in yourself – is key to building a meaningful future.”

I continued with:

European civilization, despite its flaws, has numerous compelling reasons for its existence. Its legacy is vast and innovative, spanning from the philosophical depth of the Greeks and the legal brilliance of Rome to the sublime art of the Renaissance and the scientific revolution that expanded our understanding of the universe.

This passage highlights the remarkable achievements in music and literature by figures such as Bach, Shakespeare, and Dostoevsky, demonstrating that our culture is not nihilistic. It reminds us that societies influenced by Europe have built institutions that foster liberty, curiosity, and prosperity—values that have spread worldwide despite facing tough challenges like colonialism, total wars, and ideological conflicts.

The tradition they represent encourages self-criticism, from Socrates questioning Athens to Christian calls for repentance. This ability to look inward is a true strength. When this healthy impulse transforms into harmful ethno-masochism — where guilt becomes a core part of identity and heritage is seen as original sin — it turns toxic.

It turns toxic when the West tries to homogenize and impose its own image on the world, claiming to promote democracy and waving the Banner of Holy Goodness. This is often accompanied by gunboat diplomacy, which they justify as a means of maintaining peace through strength. Many of us in the West feel compelled to enforce our lifestyle on the world while ignoring the national interests of other nations, effectively pursuing conquest and neglecting the nationalism of those we conquer. But after 700 years of Western colonialism (and neo-colonialism), the world rejects Western global aspiration, characterized as follows:

What is OURS is OURS
What is yours is OURS also
You’re either for US or against US
It’s either OUR way or the highway
If you don’t do it OUR way, you're DEAD MEAT.

The world is essentially saying, “Get lost ... Mind Your Own Business!”

...

My most intense critiques are not directed at Westerners as a whole. In fact, I am more European than most, holding both English and Dutch nationalities. However, I despise the liberal Atlanticist West — a civilizational project that has universalized its own issues: radical individualism, the loss of the sacred, technological control, and moral relativism that erodes identity, hierarchy, and meaning.

The modern Western world is exhibiting signs of spiritual exhaustion, such as declining birth rates, cultural self-criticism among elites, and a move away from shared values toward consumerism and ideology. An extended "forgetting of Being" could potentially lead to nihilism within late liberalism. When a civilization seems to be unknowingly approaching collapse, passionate thinkers like me often feel compelled to express our concerns.

As I wrote two weeks ago, in my editorial “A Likely Off-ramp,” I feel confident that the world will soon reach an end to the bloodshed in Eastern Europe, West Asia (the Middle East), and East Asia. My reason is simple. It can’t get worse because of mutual deterrence, plus no one wants a nuclear crater in their backyards. It can only get better.

This Friday, I'll discuss how many Westerners are either uninformed or misinformed, focusing on the concept of the Blob that fuels mob rule. I’ll explain the so-called World Wide Deep State – the Blob – which isn’t as deep as it sounds. All of their mindset and actions are well documented. The process of manufacturing consent or brainwashing has existed since the beginning of time. Why do mindless sheep follow other mindless sheep? Trust! Mutual Trust! Humanity is programmed to trust.

Yes, sheep have a strong, hard-wired instinct to follow the sheep in front of them, a behavior known as "flocking". This social herding instinct ensures they stay together for safety, with the group often following a dominant leader or simply moving to stay in visual contact with the flock. [1, 2]

Key Aspects of This Behavior:

Safety in Numbers: As prey animals, staying in tight groups protects them from predators, who are more likely to target outliers.
The Follow-the-Leader Instinct: If one sheep starts moving, the rest are inclined to follow, sometimes blindly.
Collective Decision-Making: Flocks often move based on temporary leaders, relying on a "collective intelligence" to find food and water.
Not Always Wise: This instinct can lead them to follow one another into dangerous situations (like over a ledge) because they are often more focused on moving with the crowd than on checking the path ahead. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

This strong social bond means that sheep become highly stressed when separated from their flock. [1]

To be continued on Friday, 15 May 2026.

Enjoy your weekend,

Abraham A. van Kempen
Senior Editor

Building the Bridge Foundation, The Hague
A Way to Get to Know One Another 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.

ALEX KRAINER: CEASEFIRE IN THE US-IRAN WAR IS OVER — TRUMP IS TRAPPED & DEFEATED

Market analyst, author, and former hedge fund manager Alex Krainer states that the U.S. lacks a feasible path to secure either a military victory or a negotiated settlement that upholds its hegemonic position in the region.

Glenn Diesen and Alex Krainer analyze tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, shifts in U.S. messaging, and the difficulty of declaring victory without escalating conflicts.
Krainer describes U.S. decision-making as reactive and improvisational, with the conflict causing problems Washington struggles to control, leaving little room for quick stabilization.
Krainer notes Iran views Hormuz as vital for security and regional talks, and ongoing control could erode U.S.-Israeli dominance.
The discussion frames a shift toward multipolarity, noting the U.S. can't “be everywhere” and should prioritize key regions, negotiated results, and limits on coercion.
The Middle East crisis affects Ukraine and European security, highlighting heightened risks in northern Europe and the potential for miscalculation as deterrence dynamics shift.
Krainer highlights ongoing regime-change pressures on Iran and reviews policy networks influencing decision-making across administrations. He warns that flashpoints such as Hormuz, Ukraine, and the Baltics increase the risk of a broader conflict.

Watch the Video Here (44 minutes, 38 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
08 May 2026

Prof. Glenn Diesen talks with analyst and former fund manager Alex Krainer about shifting war aims, the Strait of Hormuz, and what the widening conflict could mean for Europe.

Inside the Escalation: Strait of Hormuz, Iran, and Europe’s Next Move

Q (Glenn Diesen): Welcome back. I’m joined again by Alex Krainer—market analyst, author, and former head fund manager. Alex, thanks for coming on.

A (Alex Krainer): Thanks, Glenn. It’s good to be back—hello to everyone listening.

Q (Glenn): We’re barely into this U.S. “Project Freedom”—basically trying to force open the Strait of Hormuz. It was supposed to kick off on Monday. Day one didn’t go well, and by day two, Trump says it’s on pause.

Trump says Pakistan asked him to pause it. It may restart as U.S. warships try to transit Hormuz—yet Marco Rubio insists “Epic Fury achieved its objectives.”

A (Alex): Honestly, it feels improvised—like they’re reacting in real time, without a clear plan that goes three or four steps ahead.

And the irony is: this war didn’t need to happen in the first place. Now they’re trying to “fix” problems the war itself created—and Trump doesn’t have an easy way to claim a win or just walk away.

So I think he still wants something he can point to—some visible “win” over Iran. And with that China trip coming up, the temptation is to show up looking strong, not stuck.
Maybe that’s why we’re seeing this escalation—he wants to arrive in Beijing with “better cards.” But either way, I don’t see this settling down anytime soon.

Q (Glenn): Let me put it this way: it looks like Trump went for a decapitation strike—maybe thinking it would work—but he still had a Yemen-style fallback: bomb for a while and then step back. But if Hormuz is existential for Iran, what does “step back” even mean?

If Iran really sees Hormuz as existential, it can’t just go back to “normal” sanctions and constant threats—especially with U.S. bases all around. If it can credibly control the strait, it suddenly has leverage over the region: basing rights, trade, currency—everything.

So if Iran holds Hormuz, U.S.–Israeli dominance in the Gulf is basically over. Where does this go from here—how does it end?

A (Alex): Yeah—unfortunately, it looks like we’re heading into another escalation. Before this started, I wondered if Trump would do something more symbolic and contained—almost pre-arranged—so both sides could back away afterward.

Up to late February, there still seemed to be a negotiating lane, and Iran looked at least somewhat open. Iran also has real human capital—engineers, scientists—so you could imagine a limited “token” phase that keeps the door open. But once day-one strikes start killing civilians and key figures, and it’s sold publicly in triumphalist terms, it becomes very hard to go back to talks.

To me, they’ve boxed themselves into extremes—there’s not much of a gray-zone off-ramp left.
If the U.S. keeps striking, Iran will hit back, and you get a ratchet effect. And if you zoom out, I don’t think the U.S. is in a great position for a long, grinding war at the far end of the world.

We’ve spent 25 years burning through stockpiles and wearing out forces. Iran, meanwhile, has geography on its side. And remember: regime-change plans for Iran have been floating around for decades—there’s a reason leaders kept dodging it.

And because Trump has publicly “owned” this, it’s politically hard for him to just reverse course. If it widens, the costs could be very high—and the endgame could look like the U.S. being pushed out of the region.

Q (Glenn): The U.S. has the biggest military on paper—but it can’t do everything, everywhere, all at once. If you don’t choose priorities, you end up overstretched.

And Hormuz is one of those places where Iran doesn’t need to match the U.S. ship-for-ship to cause real damage.

Mines, drones, missiles—they’re cheap. The strait is narrow. You don’t need sci fi tech to shut it down.

So here’s the scary question: if Washington gets desperate, does it—or Israel—reach for something far more destructive?

And if the alternative is de-escalation, can the U.S. even disentangle if Israel doesn’t want it to?
Forget peace for a moment—can a ceasefire even hold?

A (Alex): From what I’ve seen, it’s already effectively broken after the overnight strikes. Could it be re established later? Sure. But right now, I don’t see the conditions for it.

On Israel, I’ll be honest—I struggle to make sense of where this is going. You’ve got Gaza, Lebanon, the West Bank… and I don’t see a political force that’s ready to slam the brakes.

Even inside Israel, you’re seeing warnings that the country has been hollowed out—more façade than substance. And then you have pressure points like Hezbollah’s gains in the north.

You’d think we’d have learned something from Afghanistan: twenty years, enormous costs, and then we leave without achieving the goal.

Yemen is another example. And Iran is on a completely different scale—tens of millions of people, a serious military. Even if you hit a lot of targets, I don’t think you “break” a country like that from the air.

And as far as I can tell, plenty of policy and intelligence people have warned for years that this is a bad idea. If you sideline dissenting advisers and narrow the circle, you raise the odds of wild, unpredictable decisions.

In the most extreme scenarios, I don’t expect a U.S. nuclear strike. I worry more about Israel escalating in unpredictable ways. Either way, I think we’re entering a messy phase where things shift day to day—and I don’t see Trump simply walking away and accepting Iran as the new regional hegemon.

Q (Glenn): Last year, Trump was talking about a multipolar world and cutting commitments—especially in Europe. Now we’re escalating with Iran and still backing Ukraine. What happened?

A (Alex): I honestly don’t know. In 2025, I thought he was moving toward leaving Ukraine and avoiding new wars in the Middle East. Now it looks like the opposite. My best guess is there’s long-running pressure in Washington to confront Iran.

I also don’t think this started with Trump. The push to reshape the Middle East—and ultimately to go after Iran—has been around for a long time.

From my perspective, there’s a mix of institutions and interest groups that can narrow any president’s room to maneuver. This next part is just my read of it.

I think, at key moments, leaders get surrounded by advisers who favor escalation—especially if there’s a “trigger” event they can point to.

And yes—pro-Israel politics in the U.S., and Israeli leadership itself, clearly matter here. I also suspect broader financial interests tend to reinforce the same direction, though that’s harder to pin down.

Historically, I see Israel as tied to earlier British strategy in the region—and I think enduring strategic interests keep dragging policy back to the Middle East.

More generally, I think elites—financial and political—shape what’s possible in a lot of capitals. That’s part of why the agenda can persist across administrations.

And sometimes politics has a coercive side: once a leader commits publicly, it’s much harder to back out.

Q (Glenn): Trump’s always had this contradiction: he says forever wars are a disaster and the U.S. should stay out—but he also talks like America can’t “let Iran win.” So what happens when “maximum pressure” hits what Iran sees as an existential threat?

Q (Glenn): One last question. How does this Iran war spill over into Europe’s war—or NATO’s war—in Ukraine?

If Washington keeps “maximum pressure” on Iran, Iran may decide it has nothing left to lose. And Ukraine has already drained Western stockpiles. So if the U.S. starts pulling back—or just can’t keep up—does Europe feel pushed to escalate?

And this is happening while U.S. protection for Europe looks like it’s fading—and Russia looks determined to hit back hard. We’re also seeing moves like the UK and nine northern countries forming a new naval bloc. How do you read all of that?

A (Alex): I think it’s a dangerous moment. U.S. guarantees in Europe look weaker, and Russia is signaling it wants deterrence back. And then you have the Joint Expeditionary Force—the JEF. On 23 April, naval leaders from ten northern European countries signed protocols to deepen a UK-led maritime structure aimed at constraining Russia’s northern routes.

As I understand it, the idea is to pressure Russian shipping—through inspections and interdictions tied to sanctions enforcement—which forces Russia to respond with escorts and onboard security.

But that can turn into a feedback loop: escorts increase, then it’s called heightened “incursions,” which justifies more countermeasures. And it’s very London-centered—operational control runs through the UK.

They’re talking about a multi-year plan to standardize equipment and procedures and route command-and-control through a London-based center.

What I don’t get is why other countries sign up for UK leadership in such an antagonistic posture rather than focusing on coexistence and trade.

All ten are already in NATO. The pitch is that the JEF is quicker and more agile than NATO’s bureaucracy. My worry is: if something goes wrong, it still gets folded back into NATO obligations—basically a tripwire.

Zooming out, I think this kind of structure pushes us toward a major-power collision—and toward a final fight over what the next order looks like.

I hope I’m wrong—but I don’t think this transition gets settled just by diplomacy.

Q (Glenn): Thanks for coming on, Alex. I appreciate it.

A (Alex): Thank you for the invite. Take care.

WHAT “PROJECT FREEDOM” REVEALS ABOUT POWER IN A MULTIPOLAR AGE

Washington states its Iran offensive is “over” and calls recent maritime actions "defensive.” However, the shift from "Epic Fury” to “Project Freedom” reveals a broader problem: a move from strategy to short-term escalations, especially as U.S. influence wanes and allies brace for a world less dominated by a superpower.

By Abraham A. van Kempen
10 May 2026

The Strait of Hormuz situation is a tense geopolitical standoff with global stakes. Unpredictable U.S. actions and Iran's efforts to control the strait heighten risks of escalation. Both sides seek leverage—U.S. targets short-term gains and reputation, while Iran aims to boost regional security and influence.

Ultimately, the path to de-escalation is unclear, with actions that close diplomatic channels and increase risks to regional and global security. The cycle of retaliation threatens to deepen hostilities, complicating efforts for a negotiated resolution. The situation's development could significantly impact the global economy and regional stability.

Today's language shapes perceptions. The Trump administration calls Operation “Epic Fury” complete and “Project Freedom” limited to protect ships through the Strait of Hormuz, not an offensive. The shift from declaring “war is terminated” to renewed clashes, then a pause, shows a hurried effort to control the narrative rather than a clear change.

The Strait of Hormuz, a vital route handling about 20% of global oil, faces geopolitical risks during escort missions. Conducting military operations under de-escalation is risky, relying on the hope that the other side accepts humiliation, bears costs, and doesn't challenge rules. Yet, coercion rarely goes as planned.

Analyst Alex Krainer claims Washington reacts to setbacks by improvising, seeking a "winnable" situation to show to the public. This highlights a political reality: leaders boast about "victory" and limit options to back down. Consequently, de-escalation is often confused with retreat, leading to small, face-saving moves that can escalate the stakes.

Consider the conflicting messages from the administration about these initiatives. 'Epic Fury' aimed to weaken Iran’s military and halt nuclear development, while “Project Freedom' focuses on humanitarian efforts like rescuing sailors and safeguarding routes. These projects have different goals and contrasting ideas of success. When objectives shift faster than events at sea, it suggests the real aim may be to keep everyone—adversaries, allies, Congress, and markets—uncertain rather than having clear goals.

Rubio warns that escort missions won’t fully solve the straits issue, highlighting a strategy in which a coastal power can block chokepoints without sinking ships—by raising insurance costs, hindering traffic, and creating transit uncertainty. Methods like mines, drones, missiles, small boats, legal actions, or targeted measures can restrict access without war. While escorts reduce some risks, they also increase the presence of armed ships in busy areas, raising the risks of accidents and conflicts.

This is where the broader concept of multipolarity comes into focus. The idea that the U.S. can manage Europe, Gulf crises, and Asian competition relies on a 1990s view: one superpower overseeing multiple regions flexibly. But multipolarity involves real logistical difficulties. As new centers of power emerge, the number of crises requiring attention grows, demanding more resources from the U.S. Meanwhile, key decisions depend on Washington’s focus and what it considers manageable.

This trade-off is real. It links the Middle East escalation to Ukraine: a Gulf flare-up could divert U.S. focus, resources, and support from Kyiv, complicating aid efforts. European countries might act more independently and aggressively, especially if diplomacy with Moscow seems less urgent. Crises influence each other, reducing errors in others.

In Northern Europe, independence and collaboration persist. In April, the UK hosted JEF Chiefs of Navy in London, emphasizing naval cooperation and deterrence in the High North, the North Atlantic, and the Baltic amid concerns about Russia. Shortly after, ten European countries formed a multinational maritime force within the JEF, led by Britain, to complement NATO. Despite political differences, allies focus on autonomous, rapid-response capabilities, often acting faster than NATO.

Parallel structures can enhance readiness and interoperability but risk confusion over command, escalation, and accountability in maritime incidents. A flexible coalition near Russian forces can deter threats but may speed up decision-making and reduce deconfliction time. In environments with drones, vulnerable undersea infrastructure, and gray-zone activities, the challenge is to maintain deterrence without increasing accidental escalation.

“Project Freedom” appears more symbolic than a naval operation, representing a gesture to restore control. Symbols can show resolve without being cynical, but problems occur when they replace actual policy. To prevent Iran from 'normalizing' control over the strait, the U.S. must clarify what normalization entails. It might mean Iran can exert costs at will, which escorts alone can't fully counter without broader political agreements.

What does coherence entail? View phases and code names as parts of a larger framework, focusing on the main goal—whether preventing a nuclear breakout, restoring navigation, lowering regional tensions, or promoting reform in Iran. Strategies for one goal can affect others. Establish a reliable deconfliction channel that stays open during hostilities, as chokepoints are more sensitive to miscalculations than open waters. Emphasize the international aspect—beyond urging "every country to join us”—by setting clear, mutually agreed rules for escorts, inspections, incident investigations, and collateral damage reparations. Finally, see diplomacy not just as a path to victory after pressure, but as an ongoing process that can reduce the need for pressure from the start.

In a world of powerful players, influence requires effort, clear communication, and ongoing work, not automatic power. The shift from “Epic Fury” to “Project Freedom,” with a pause, shows the US is still adjusting. Allies are forming new ties, exercising caution, or reevaluating crisis management. To prevent Hormuz from causing larger issues like energy shortages, European misjudgments, or Asian opportunism, Washington must do more than just be determined. It needs a smart, adaptable strategy that considers facts, politics, and constraints.

Northern Navies, Real Risks: When Deterrence Starts to Look Like a Tripwire

Europe’s new maritime initiatives may be meant to strengthen security—but without clearer rules, they can also shrink the space for diplomacy and crisis control.

This excerpt highlights a security debate over a military shift. One side supports increased naval cooperation among northern European countries to improve interoperability, joint planning, and faster responses. The other warns that such collaboration could cause incidents, escalate tensions, and entangle NATO.

The UK-led Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF), formed in 2014, includes ten northern European countries. It aims to maintain a continuous, combat-ready presence in the High North, North Atlantic, and Baltic to supplement NATO. These plans require assessing costs, command, rules of engagement, and balancing readiness with risk.

The main risk isn't the JEF label but the political influence on operational choices. Maritime actions such as boarding, inspections, or aggressive maneuvers near busy shipping lanes or infrastructure can unintentionally trigger conflict. Each side sees its actions as defensive and the other’s as provocative. A misread radar, an unacknowledged warning shot, or a small decision can escalate deterrence into conflict before the danger is fully assessed.

Some readers may find the passage’s “tripwire” language persuasive, though other interpretations exist. Similar effects are seen in alliance politics: a visible presence can discourage aggression by raising costs and enabling quicker responses. NATO’s Article 5 is not an automatic trigger; it's a political commitment involving discussion and judgment about “assistance.” As Europe builds coalitions and command structures, it's important to clarify who can act, where, and at what level of escalation.

Simplifying a complex security dilemma to a city’s master plan is insufficient. Northern maritime cooperation is affected by geography, such as the narrow Baltic Sea; technological issues, such as vulnerable cables and pipelines; and political pressures, including public demand for defenses following the situation in Ukraine. London often leads due to the UK’s naval strength and experience in coalition operations. However, perceptions matter: centralized leadership can seem unilateral, especially amid mistrust in maritime incidents.

European leaders should see crisis management as a key deterrence skill, not an afterthought. This involves clearer maritime rules in peace, better hotlines and incident protocols at sea, and democratic oversight of quick responses involving multiple countries. Balancing firmness and predictability—via maritime awareness, infrastructure protection, and diplomatic communication—is crucial even during tense times.

Without these, conflicting narratives like "deterrence' versus “provocation" can hinder war prevention.

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

LAWRENCE WILKERSON: ROGUE STATE AMERICA - DECAY OF A SUPERPOWER

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson discusses the moral collapse of the US as its hegemonic position faltered.
Wilkerson is a retired Colonel in the US Army and the former Chief of Staff to the US Secretary of State.

Watch the Video Here (45 minutes, 15 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
06 May 2026

Prof. Glenn Diesen’s interview with Col. Lawrence Wilkerson focused on U.S. policy toward Iran and the wider implications for global order.

Wilkerson argues that the U.S. is attempting to rhetorically “declare success” and exit after an operation around the Strait of Hormuz failed to achieve its stated aims, while escalating rhetoric and messaging from senior officials undermine credibility and increase the risk of broader conflict.

Key points

Strait of Hormuz / Iran operation: Wilkerson says U.S. actions have “failed objectively” and that statements claiming objectives were met appear aimed at walking back involvement and finding a face-saving exit.
International law and escalation: He criticizes claims that a blockade is not an act of war, arguing that such assertions reflect a poor grasp of established international norms and raise escalation dangers.
Naval power limits: He contends modern aircraft carriers (U.S. and French) are increasingly vulnerable/obsolete in first-tier conflict; symbolic deployments add little and could be liabilities.
Shift in global leadership: He contrasts Western military posturing with BRICS messaging about “resilience, innovation, cooperation, and sustainability,” suggesting major non Western powers are positioning themselves as the cooperative pole.
U.S./Israel trajectory: He portrays U.S. and Israeli policy as deeply destabilizing and predicts severe long-term consequences, including mounting international legal/moral backlash.
Europe’s predicament: He expects European leaders to face political turnover and argues Europe’s alignment with U.S. policy is unsustainable as U.S. influence wanes.
Nuclear risk: He frames nuclear weapons as the key factor making today’s great-power competition uniquely existential, warning against renewed arms racing and first-strike thinking.
“Threat dependence” thesis: Discussing George Kennan and the “Report from Iron Mountain,” he suggests empires/alliances tend to require an external threat to maintain cohesion, and proposes climate change as a non-military common challenge that could replace conflict-driven cohesion.
China/Russia response: He argues that continued U.S. leadership choices could drive China, Russia, and others toward stronger coordination against the U.S., accelerating the decline of the U.S.-led financial and sanctions architecture.

Takeaway: The discussion presents a pessimistic assessment that U.S. messaging and military escalation around Iran may be masking strategic limits, while accelerating a broader realignment toward a multipolar order—under conditions made far more dangerous by nuclear weapons.

INTEL ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION WITH JOHNSON & MCGOVERN AND SCOTT RITTER: WEEKLY SUMMARY. MAY 8

This discussion covers two issues: a possible U.S./Israeli escalation against Iran and recent developments in the Russia–Ukraine war. Panelists see a shifting strategic balance, with a strengthening Russia–China alliance and a move away from U.S.-dominated security frameworks.

The speakers see a possible air campaign against Iran, but it depends on politics, especially concerns over a false flag to influence domestic timelines. They think a U.S. ground invasion is unlikely due to force limits, with Russia and China setting higher deterrent thresholds. Both countries also push for a new Gulf security framework, potentially causing Arab allies to distance from Washington.

The panel says Russia has adapted to drone warfare, now has the initiative, and may become more aggressive, possibly expanding strikes beyond Ukraine to Europe. Dmitry Medvedev warned about avoiding a catastrophe like 1941 and extensive destruction in a larger conflict.

Escalation risk (Iran): Renewed bombing is framed as possible, with heightened concern about a triggering incident used to justify expanded action.
Limits on U.S. options: The U.S. presence is largely support-oriented (not sized for invasion/occupation), constraining military options.
Great-power signaling: Russia/China are portrayed as coordinating deterrent messaging and advancing alternatives to U.S.-led Gulf security arrangements.
China’s leverage gap: The discussion emphasizes U.S. dependence on Chinese rare earths and a perceived shift in financial/industrial power toward China.
Ukraine trajectory and spillover: Russia is depicted as gaining an advantage and considering escalation that could broaden the conflict to Europe if drone-enabled strikes persist.

Watch the Video Here (35 minutes, 26 seconds)

Host: Judge Andrew Napolitano
Judging Freedom
08 May 2026

Judge Andrew Napolitano with Ray McGovern, Larry Johnson, and Scott Ritter.

Key Questions & Answers

Q: How close are the U.S. and Israel to resuming large-scale bombing of Iran?
A: Larry Johnson suggests action is more likely if Trump considers a trip to China and warns of a potential 'false flag' incident, like one falsely blaming Iran for attacking U.S. forces, to justify escalation.

Q: How many U.S. troops are in the region, and are ground forces being prepared?
A: Scott Ritter estimates 10,000-15,000 personnel, mainly in support roles like communications, intelligence, logistics, and aircraft maintenance, not a ground-invasion force. He says a large occupation would need many more troops—hundreds of thousands to over a million—which the U.S. does not have.

Q: What is Russia doing to protect Iran?
A: Ray McGovern says details are uncertain but suggests intelligence supports the claims. He mentions a call between Putin and Trump, where both warned that a ground invasion and air strikes would be “unacceptable,” with China reportedly using similar language.

Q: What leverage does Trump have with Xi Jinping?
A: Larry Johnson says “none,” arguing the U.S. needs Chinese rare earths to replenish key munitions and air-defense interceptors, while China is in a stronger financial and industrial position.

Q: Do the Chinese know what Trump will say before he arrives?
A: Ray McGovern answers “yes,” implying Chinese intelligence and briefing capacity would anticipate U.S. messaging and negotiating moves.

Q: What does the “two against one” strategic equation mean?
A: Ray McGovern frames it as Russia and China aligned against the U.S., with Europe portrayed as increasingly marginal in strategic terms.

Q: Has Trump helped create a Russia–Iran–China triangle?
A: Scott Ritter states a triangle was forming via economic corridors and BRICS links, but the current war has removed hesitations and boosted coordination among the three.

Q: What do Russia and China mean by a new “security architecture” in the Gulf?
A: Larry Johnson views this as moving from a U.S.-centered regional order—focused on bases, arms sales, and financial ties—to one where Gulf states diversify security ties toward Russia and China. This shift is driven by worries over U.S. unreliability and conflict spillover.

Q: Do U.S./Israeli intelligence agencies recognize their failures in the past two months?
A: Ray McGovern suggests they “have to” recognize setbacks if they are realistic, but notes options are limited. He references leaked assessments of Iran’s staying power and implies U.S. narratives/assumptions have been undermined.

Q: Is Ukraine “back to the wall,” and are Russian elites losing patience with the pace of war?
A: Scott Ritter calls that a misread, arguing Russia has adapted to drone warfare and is gaining battlefield advantage while Ukraine faces manpower constraints. He describes a potential Russian shift away from a “patient” approach due to escalatory drone strikes into Russia.

Q: What did Dmitry Medvedev say, and what does it imply?
A: Ray McGovern quotes Medvedev warning of a high risk of mutual destruction, potentially ending European civilization. Scott Ritter sees this as a sign Russia is ready to escalate strikes against European centers supporting Ukrainian drones if Europe escalates.

GERMANY’S NEW MILITARIZATION: REVIVAL OF THE SPIRIT OR BLATANT REVANCHISM? (BY DMITRY MEDVEDEV)

On the eve of Victory Day

By Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, 3rd President of Russia

7 May 2026

Threats from Donald Trump on March 27, 2026, at a Miami investment forum to withdraw the US from NATO, along with J.D. Vance's remarks on Europe losing its identity during a Fox News interview on March 15, 2026, and European countries' refusal to join the conflict against Iran or block the Strait of Hormuz, are fueling greater rifts between Europe and America than in the past 100 years.

These developments reveal that European ‘strategic autonomy,’ valued by liberals, is nearer than it seems. The main question is who will lead in today’s weakened, detached Europe. Contenders include the unappealing Brussels bureaucracy, boastful French, and assertive German leadership aiming for dominance. Germany is also distancing itself from accountability for Nazism. Let’s examine this further.

There is nothing new in the actions of the German leadership (first of all, the descendants of the Nazis Merz & Co) ...

Please continue reading ...

BETWEEN TWO VICTORIES

A nation suspended between memory, war, and rebirth.

Alexander Dugin
Multipolar Press
Substack.com
09 May 2026

I congratulate everyone on Victory Day! They were victorious. Then we lived by that Victory for quite a long time. Later, its fruits were stolen from us. They even tried to steal the great holiday itself. That failed.

Now we are once again at war. Completely, headlong, with our whole being. The next Victory is our task. Our grandfathers and great-grandfathers fulfilled theirs. Now it is our turn.

Perhaps this is the most difficult time in which to celebrate this holiday: between two Victories. One that already exists, and another that is yet to come. If there is no new Victory, then we will squander and betray the feat of those who achieved the previous one. That very nearly happened in the vile, shameful, bastardized 1990s. May they be cursed together with all their names, figures, rulers, and institutions. It was an era of total defeat and betrayal.

Now we have embarked upon the path of rebirth. It has proven more difficult than we thought and expected. Because the dark legacy of the 1990s crashes over us again and again like a wave. It interrupts the path towards Victory, prevents spiritual mobilization, and undermines the people’s trust in the elite (because it dates back to the 1990s, and that fact alone is damning).

Yet the feat of our warriors is sacred. The memory of it will never fade. A holiday with bitterness. Double bitterness.

Our dead look upon us in bewilderment. Save the country… What are you doing?

(Translated from the Russian)

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

LATEST OPEN LETTERS

03-02
TO WORLD LEADERS
06-01
Standing in Solidarity with the People of Venezuela
21-07
Freedom
20-03
Stand up to Trump
18-02
Average Americans Response
23-12
Tens of thousands of dead children.......this must stop
05-06
A Call to Action: Uniting for a Lasting Peace in the Holy Land
28-05
Concerned world citizen
13-02
World Peace
05-12
My scream to the world