Our Monday News Analysis | What the World THINKS Now!

Photo by Bobby on Unsplash

Living Words from John Paul II | ‘Nothing but the Cross … Bear One Another’s Burdens’

“A conscientious person obeys all things and their conscience in every situation and does not silence the inner voice, even if it is sometimes severe and demanding.”

Saint Pope John Paul II
In honor of Saint Jan Sarkander
The Kaplicówka Esplanade, Skoczów (Poland)
May 22, 1995

Building the Bridge Foundation

FROM THE BRIDGE| Joining the Light Among Nations

By Abraham A. van Kempen
Founder and Chairman
21 September 2026

A word on faith, nationalism, human dignity, and the courage to choose compassion over domination.

Last Friday, I wrote the longest editorial I’ve ever written: Build Bridges before the River Rises – Trump, Xi, and Putin to Choose Persuasion Over Coercion. This week, I’d like you to consider joining the Light Among Nations.

We live in a time when fear is loud. It flashes across our screens before breakfast. It follows us into voting booths, airport lines, neighborhood meetings, and sometimes even into our places of worship. Mothers learn the geography of war by the names of hospitals. Fathers stand in doorways, wondering how to keep their children safe. Young people inherit arguments they did not start. In moments like this, the question is not simply what we believe. The question is what our beliefs make possible in us. Do they make our hands more open, our eyes more honest, and our courage more tender? Or do they make it easier to excuse cruelty when it wears our colors and speaks our language?

I speak not only to Christians but to anyone who has ever loved a homeland, feared for a child, prayed beside a hospital bed, or wondered what kind of world we are leaving behind. Every tradition, nation, and community faces the same temptation: to confuse love of home with fear of the stranger, security with domination, and loyalty with silence. For Christians, that temptation is especially dangerous because our central symbol is not a throne or a sword. It is a cross. Jesus did not say, “Make them afraid.” He said, “Follow me” (Matthew 16:24). He warned that those who live by the sword are finally consumed by it (Matthew 26:52). That is not merely a private religious detail. It is a public moral warning.

Timothy F. Sedgwick’s The Christian Moral Life: Practices of Piety offers a helpful framework for thinking about this. Ethics is not merely a list of positions we announce. It is a way of being formed over time. Prayer, worship, self-examination, simplicity, hospitality, and service are practices that train people to notice suffering, resist pride, welcome strangers, and act with mercy. You need not share every Christian conviction to recognize the public value of this kind of moral formation.

In his 1995 address to the United Nations, Saint Pope John Paul II made a related point. He warned that extreme nationalism is not true patriotism. Real patriotism can love one’s own people without despising others. It can honor a homeland without turning it into an idol. He called the nations to move from merely existing alongside one another to existing for one another. That is a powerful idea, not only for believers. It is a vision of shared human responsibility.

So what would it mean to become a light among nations? Not a spotlight that blinds others. Not a torch carried by a mob. At its best, a light is what a child sees under the door when someone loving is still awake. It is what a traveler looks for in a storm. It does not need to shout. It helps people see. In public life, that might look like defending religious freedom without weaponizing it, protecting national security without dehumanizing outsiders, and standing with victims without pretending only one side can suffer.

That is why we need to speak honestly about Christian nationalism in the United States. Research from the Pew Research Center and PRRI shows that this is not merely a fringe idea; it has real public influence. At its worst, Christian nationalism turns faith into a badge of tribal power. It asks us to see neighbors as threats before we even know their names. It turns the human face into a category, the stranger into a slogan, and love of country into a locked gate. But any faith worthy of the name should make us more humble, not more entitled. It should widen our circle of concern, not shrink it.

We should also speak honestly about Christian Zionism when it becomes an automatic religious cover for state violence. Christians must completely reject antisemitism. Jewish safety and dignity are not optional. At the same time, Palestinian dignity is not optional either. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented grave suffering in Israel, Gaza, and the occupied Palestinian territory. But beyond every report is a face: a grandmother counting pills, a father carrying bread through smoke, a child learning the sound of drones before the sound of birds, a family waiting for a hostage to come home, a neighbor digging through dust for someone’s name. We do not honor one people by refusing to see another. We do not build peace by treating grief as a competition. We do not make the world safer by deciding that some children’s fear matters more than others.

A light among nations is not a searchlight hunting for enemies. It is more like a candle in a window, a small sign that someone is still awake for the wounded world. It says, “You are not only a flag. You are not only a headline. You are not only a passport or a target. You are someone’s beloved.” Imagine that light in Gaza, in Israeli homes marked by terror and loss, in Ukraine, in Sudan, at migrant crossings, in prisons, in hospitals, and in neighborhoods where people have simply stopped trusting one another. Imagine one person saying to another, across all that history and hurt: I will not look away from your pain.

That light would not say, “God belongs to us,” or “Our group is always innocent,” or “Security excuses everything.” It would say something both simple and demanding: every person has dignity, every nation has responsibilities, and no community is above moral judgment. Freedom without truth becomes arrogance. Power without solidarity becomes cruelty. Religion without hospitality becomes a locked room, even if its walls are covered with sacred words.

Please do not mistake this for weakness. Compassion is not avoidance. Peacemaking is not pretending evil does not exist. The kind of love I describe has a backbone. It can hold a trembling hand and still tell the truth. It can stand between a bully and a victim. It can name terrorism, occupation, collective punishment, ethnic hatred, religious supremacy, and political violence without surrendering anyone's humanity. It asks us to resist an enemy without becoming what we oppose and to protect our people without teaching our hearts to despise another people.

So where do we begin? We begin close to the ground, close to the table, close to the person in front of us. We listen before we speak. We examine our motives before condemning someone else’s. We simplify our lives enough to notice who is being crushed by our comfort. We open our tables, our communities, and our imaginations to people we were taught to fear. We learn names. We hear accents. We pass the bread. We sit long enough for a story to become more powerful than a stereotype. For Christians, these practices flow from discipleship. For a broader society, they are also habits of humane democracy.

If we lived that way, people might see a different kind of Christianity—and, more broadly, a different kind of public moral life. Not one that craves control. Not one that confuses faith with dominance or patriotism with contempt. But one marked by hospitality, solidarity, humility, service, and a stubborn refusal to let fear have the last word.

And so I want to end with an invitation, not from above you but beside you. Before we leave this room, before we return to our phones, our headlines, our arguments, and our familiar sides, let us ask the questions that can still save us: What am I being trained to love? What am I being trained to fear? Who becomes invisible when my group feels threatened? Whose tears have I learned to explain away? Somewhere tonight, a child will ask whether the world is safe. Somewhere, a mother will wait for news she cannot bear to hear. Somewhere, a family will set one more empty place at the table. These questions are not abstractions. They are waiting for us in human bodies, in trembling hands, in names we may never know.

So let us become the people the wounded world is waiting for. Let us be light, not heat. Let us be steady, not harsh. Let us defend the dignity of our own communities while refusing to deny anyone else's dignity. Let us make room for grief on every side, for truth on every side, and for responsibility on every side. Let us choose the hard courage of compassion over the easy comfort of contempt.

And if we are people of faith, let us remember this: the credibility of our faith will not be measured by how loudly we proclaim God, but by whether the person before us can see mercy in our eyes, justice in our choices, and humility in our hands. Let that be the light we carry out of this room. Let it reach the border, the hospital, the prison, the shelter, the grieving home, the enemy’s door, and the neighbor’s table.

So when we leave this room, let each of us choose one concrete act of light. Call someone you have stopped listening to. Learn the name and story of a neighbor you have been taught to fear. Refuse to use language that reduces any people to animals, invaders, enemies, or statistics. Give time or money this week to someone who is protecting the vulnerable. Ask your faith community, school, workplace, or civic group to host one honest conversation across differences. Write to a leader and ask for policies that protect security without abandoning human dignity. And tonight, before sleep, name one group whose suffering you have ignored, and decide what mercy requires of you next.

Let it begin here. Let it begin with us. Let it begin now—because the wounded world does not need one more argument to win; it needs human beings brave enough to become a light.

Bibliography

1. Sedgwick, Timothy F. The Christian Moral Life: Practices of Piety. New York: Church Publishing, 2008. Publication date: 2008. Accessed 17 September 2026. Publisher page.
2. John Paul II. “Address to the Fiftieth General Assembly of the United Nations Organization.” Vatican, 5 October 1995. Publication date: 5 October 1995. Accessed 17 September 2026. Vatican text.
3. Pew Research Center. “Christianity’s Place in Politics and Christian Nationalism.” Publication date: 15 March 2024. Accessed 17 September 2026. Report page.
4. Public Religion Research Institute. “Christian Nationalism across All 50 States: Insights from PRRI’s 2024 American Values Atlas.” Publication date: 26 February 2025. Accessed 17 September 2026. Report page.
5. Human Rights Watch. “Israel and Palestine.” World Report 2025. Publication date: 2025. Accessed 17 September 2026. Report page.
6. Amnesty International. “Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” Amnesty International Report 2024/25. Publication date: 2025. Accessed 17 September 2026. Report page.

We’re on our way to Yalta in peace, slowly but surely.

To be continued on Friday, 25 September 2026.

With every good wish to you, I am,

Sincerely yours,

Abraham A. van Kempen, Founder and Chairman
Building the Bridge Foundation, The Hague
Bridging Differences to Heal a Broken Humanity

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.

JOE KENT: ISRAEL, SYRIA & SAUDI LOSE GROUND & U.S. MUST EXIT THE REGION

Joe Kent is the former Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, who resigned in March 2026 due to the war against Iran. Kent discusses the Saudi-Yemen conflict, instability in Syria, Israel being overextended, and why the US must eventually leave the region.

Kent argues that Yemen has no viable battlefield solution for Saudi Arabia or the United States because Ansar Allah draws strength from mountainous terrain and tribal, political, religious, and wartime networks; he proposes recognition, sanctions relief, and political deal-making instead.

Watch the Video Here (53 minutes, 23 seconds)

Host: Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
10 September 2026

ESSAY | When Power Loses the Plot – Across Iran, Ukraine, and Yemen, the West keeps resorting to coercion even though diplomacy remains the most hopeful and effective path forward.

By Abraham A. van Kempen
21 September 2026

Sometimes power doesn't vanish; it loses the plot. The instruments remain—fleets, aircraft, sanctions, alliances—but the old music no longer commands the room. That unease runs through Glenn Diesen’s recent conversations with Tehran University Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi, University of Chicago Prof. John Mearsheimer, and Joe Kent, former director of the National Counterterrorism Center (2025 to 2026).

Each region—Iran and the Persian Gulf, Russia and Ukraine, Yemen and the Red Sea—has unique traits. Marandi sees them through resistance politics, Mearsheimer through a great-power realist lens, and Kent through terrain, tribes, and exhausted policies.

Despite different angles, all agree Western influence is strong, even as its methods like sanctions, bombing, proxy conflicts, naval pressure, and moral condemnations grow less reliable. The West leans on these strategies, acting as if history could return to its familiar course, but the world has grown up.

Prof. Glenn Diesen’s interviews emphasize that viewing the world through a unipolar lens misses the mark. The West often equates peace with the lack of conflict, rather than genuine resolution. Russia might condone Ukraine joining the Western military alliance, while Iran, the U.S., and Israel vie for regional hegemony in West Asia. Yemen’s Ansar Allah faces containment and external pressures. When such actions are perceived as efforts to weaken rivals rather than as fair compromises, Western “peace plans” seem more like surrender terms than a win-win solution. As a result, competing sovereign nations on the periphery are reluctant to accept strategic exclusion.

Marandi’s interview offers a new perspective on Iran. He argues that Iran isn’t the isolated, fragile “regime' often portrayed by the West. Instead, it’s a resilient country embedded in a broader Eurasian network, influencing energy markets and shipping routes, with U.S. military bases on one side and allies on the other. The Strait of Hormuz is more than a controlled passage; it’s a strategic leverage Iran manages carefully. Tehran allows some trade to continue—not out of helplessness but to maintain ties with China, Russia, India, BRICS, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Marandi warns that if tensions escalate with the West, Iran might close or disrupt traffic, attack energy infrastructure, or trigger a global economic crisis. Can the West sanction Iran even more without causing a boomerang effect harming the West and the global economy more than Iran?

Mearsheimer emphasizes incentives, security dilemmas, and great powers' red lines over resistance or anti-imperialist movements, impacting Western policy. He notes Russia's long view of Ukraine’s NATO ambitions as a threat—known in Russian circles and documented by diplomats. Western denial fueled Russia’s caution and its willingness to use force. As the conflict continues, Russia’s goals shift from keeping Ukraine neutral to actions meant to prevent Ukraine from being used against Russia in the future.

Kent’s role is practical and vital. He simplifies complex language to ask one question: what is the ultimate political goal? In Yemen, the approach often focuses on bombing, blockades, and pressure rather than strategic planning. Ansar Allah is not only a target for air strikes but also deeply rooted in mountainous terrain, tribal ties, wartime legitimacy, and regional identity. Kent’s approach is to recognize existing power structures, lift sanctions and blockades, work with tribes and local leaders, and develop a plan to counter Ansar Allah—before Iran’s influence becomes dominant. It’s about smart, practical policies after disillusionment, not appeasement.

The guests hold different views on the West's decline. Marandi sees it as rooted in policy errors stemming from exceptionalism and supremacism, arguing that the West inflicts suffering on itself through sanctions, war, and sieges. Mearsheimer identifies a realist error: great powers ignore others' security concerns and react defensively when threatened. Kent points to bureaucratic dysfunction, in which officials escalate conflicts to avoid negotiations, admit failure, or tell allies that old strategies no longer work. Despite differing views, all agree the West refuses to listen, fearing acknowledgment that adversaries can be rational, capable, and driven by fears beyond propaganda.

Refusing can increase pressure, creating a cycle of tension. In Iran, military actions might boost deterrence and influence nuclear policy, as Marandi notes. In Ukraine, pressure on Moscow hasn’t led to concessions but has resulted in more attacks on ports, energy, logistics, and military sites, according to Mearsheimer. In Yemen, Kent warns that bombing could unite tribes and fighters around Ansar Allah, risking regional escalation. Many Western leaders believe inflicting pain ensures compliance, but experts caution it often sparks resistance, opposition, and further deterrence.

Ukraine and the Middle East share troubling similarities. In both regions, the West claims to defend sovereignty and stability but often acts in ways that hinder understanding and escalate conflicts. Mearsheimer notes that abandoning diplomatic efforts, such as the Minsk and Istanbul agreements and the Trump-Putin talks, has turned Ukraine's fragile peace into a threat. Similarly, Marandi and Kent warn that pressure on Iran and Yemen could trigger a global energy and shipping crisis. Despite the rhetoric, the core issues are these: as Western pursuits intensify, opponents resist more, allies face repercussions, and Western audiences are led to believe the next move could lead to victory.

History shows that major powers rarely lose influence suddenly; instead, their strategies lose effectiveness over time. Britain at Suez learned that military force alone couldn't guarantee imperial dominance. The Soviet Union in Afghanistan found that controlling territory didn't ensure legitimacy. The U.S. in Iraq saw that removing a government isn't the same as managing a society. Diesen’s guests note a similar shift: aircraft carriers, sanctions, and missiles still work, but confidence in these tools to reliably command obedience is waning.

Diesen’s role is vital because he questions whether our usual safety through dominance is enough. While some see this as a Western weakness, it touches on the core of good statecraft. When an opponent fears security, ignoring that fear can be dangerous. If sanctions hurt innocents without causing change, calling them inadequate, not immoral, reveals a moral flaw. Similarly, bombing Yemen or Iran, or arming Ukraine without a victory, suggests that reliance on “resolve” is strategic vanity.

These interviews reveal a significant issue: Western elites often misjudge opponents by using overly simplistic labels that hide complex truths. Russia is labeled as a gas station, China as a copycat, Iran as fanatics, and Yemen as a backward periphery. These terms lack depth; they conceal the real intricacies. Such labels diminish perceived threats and make coercion appear easier. Marandi observes that Iran and China benefit from being underestimated. Mearsheimer notes that Western leaders ignored Russia’s warnings, expecting Moscow to accept humiliation. Kent explains that Yemen's local politics—tribes, terrain, patronage, legitimacy—are oversimplified as mere reliance on pressure, overlooking important nuances.

A convincing argument should steer clear of moral judgments. Countries like Iran, Russia, Ansar Allah, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Ukraine, Europe, and the U.S. each possess their own agency; none are purely heroes or villains. The core issue isn't that adversaries are necessarily innocent but that U.S. and European leaders often perceive Western interests as naturally justified and urgent. This perspective makes diplomacy difficult. Red lines are dismissed as excuses, resilience is wrongly seen as irrational, and retaliation is interpreted as a sign to apply pressure. Such thinking can lead to reckless actions that undermine nations.

Prof. Diesen’s guests now emphasize that diplomacy goes beyond superficial acts like photo ops or celebrating wins. True diplomacy begins with understanding what the other side needs to cease conflicts. Mearsheimer observes that Ukraine cannot serve as a NATO foothold on Russia’s border. Kent mentions the importance of collaborating with influential Yemen powerholders—both authorities and tribes. Marandi highlights that Iran will not tolerate ongoing regional pressures such as U.S. bases, Israeli threats, and sanctions.

Western discussions on appeasement and resolution seem simple on the surface, but they are actually complex. They require carefully weighing the risks of negotiated concessions against uncertain outcomes. Marandi warns that conflict with Iran could disrupt energy markets and destabilize the global economy. Mearsheimer argues that ignoring Ukraine's issues might weaken its stability. Additionally, Kent highlights that not involving Yemen’s key stakeholders could push them closer to Iran, increasing threats to maritime shipping. Western attempts to project strength may also reveal their limited ability to control multiple crises.

The core message is that the world is changing more rapidly than Western political ideas. While unipolar power structures still exist, they are less strong. The West continues to act as if enemies can be easily isolated, economies manipulated, regimes overthrown by bombing, and allies swayed by rhetoric. Experts like Marandi, Mearsheimer, and Kent argue that this confidence is misguided. Marandi warns Iran might exploit the Strait of Hormuz; Mearsheimer says Russia seeks to weaken Ukraine; Kent emphasizes that Yemen's complex society reduces the effectiveness of military action. Western targets remain resilient due to multiple options, allies, geographic advantages, patience, and stories of resistance. They have realized that Western anger doesn't always lead to power or influence.

A mindset shift is essential before implementing new policies. It involves recognizing Ukraine’s neutrality as a form of protection, understanding that Yemen’s situation extends beyond Riyadh's or Washington's influence, and viewing Iran’s strategies as rational. Multipolarity is a reality, not a conspiracy theory. It is crucial to see adversaries as stakeholders rather than enemies. All three interviews emphasize that overlooking diplomacy constrains options, as Mearsheimer points out. Repeated failures—from Minsk to Istanbul to Alaska—have narrowed Ukraine’s favorable choices. Similar dynamics are evident in the Middle East, where pressure has shifted toward conflict.

The saddest part is that the wiser choice is clear, yet it’s tough for today’s leaders to accept. They should see security not as a constant show of vulnerability but as a smarter, more cooperative approach. It’s time to stop thinking that escalation equals strength, and to understand that asking for conditions no Western country would accept isn’t a good strategy.

Just because global dominance is waning doesn’t mean disaster is certain—there’s no guarantee of a world war, energy crisis, or Ukraine's collapse. But if the West keeps using the same old tactics instead of real, effective strategies, those huge problems might become more likely.

Emerging powers aren’t trying to scare us—they’re trying to warn us. As the world changes—with new centers of influence, different ways of resisting, and tighter limits on coercion—the real question isn’t whether the old order can come back, but whether we can handle this change wisely—before circumstances force us to act out of desperation.

Notes:

1. Diesen–Marandi podcast: Marandi argues that Iran has not fully closed the Strait of Hormuz because it is managing pressure while preserving trade with partners, but that in the event of a wider war it could attempt to close or seriously disrupt the strait, with severe consequences for the global economy.
2. Diesen–Mearsheimer podcast: Mearsheimer says Russia views Ukraine’s NATO alignment as an existential threat, and argues that Moscow now has incentives to prevent Ukraine from again serving as a Western military platform.
3. Diesen–Kent Podcast: Kent argues that Yemen has no viable battlefield solution for Saudi Arabia or the United States because Ansar Allah draws strength from mountainous terrain and tribal, political, religious, and wartime networks; he proposes recognition, sanctions relief, and political deal-making instead.
4. Diesen–Mearsheimer transcript and related public podcast summaries: the reference is more precisely to Alaska/Anchorage diplomacy following Trump-Putin discussions, not to a standalone “Anchorage peace process”; Mearsheimer frames the sequence from Minsk to Istanbul to later Alaska diplomacy as a pattern in which missed opportunities left Ukraine facing worse terms.
5. Diesen’s podcasts, cross-interview theme: Diesen’s questioning repeatedly frames the transition from U.S.-led Western hegemony to multipolarity as requiring a shift from security through dominance to security through mutual accommodation and connectivity.

SEYED M. MARANDI: U.S. STRIKE IMMINENT - TOWARD TOTAL WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi, a professor at Tehran University and a former advisor to Iran's nuclear negotiation team, warns that we could be on the brink of a major war between the US and Iran within days or even hours, potentially involving the entire region.

Marandi argues that Iran has not fully closed the Strait of Hormuz because it is managing pressure while preserving trade with partners, but that in a wider war it could attempt to close or seriously disrupt the strait, with severe consequences for the global economy.

Watch the Video Here (1 hour, 8 minutes, 48 seconds)

Host: Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
20 September 2026

JOHN MEARSHEIMER (FIXED AUDIO): UKRAINE MAY CEASE TO EXIST — THE COMING UGLY VICTORY

Prof. John Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor in the Political Science Department at the University of Chicago.

Mearsheimer says Russia views Ukraine’s NATO alignment as an existential threat, and argues that Moscow now has incentives to prevent Ukraine from again serving as a Western military platform.

Watch the Video Here (1 hour, 8 minutes, 8 seconds)

Host: Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
19 September 2026

GUEST EDITORIAL | THE WORLD IS JUST ENOUGH: URSULA VON DER LEYEN GOES BOND VILLAIN

Leave it to a German to get EU-Europe properly encircled

Ursula von der Leyen leads the weekly College of Commissioners meeting at the Berlaymont building in Brussels, Belgium, September 9, 2026 © Getty Images ; Dursun Aydemir © 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

HomeWorld News
17 September 2026

As a historian who also happens to be German, I had that spontaneous reaction to Ursula von der Leyen’s annual grand – and always grandiloquent – “state of the union” address to the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

It’s not really a “union,” of course, and not really a “parliament,” either: technically, the EU is a confederation marred by the ideological construct of “supranationalism”; and the parliament has no independent legislative power, but let’s not dwell on the obvious.

At the head of her Commission (read: overreaching Central Committee) of career bureaucrats, von der Leyen is the unelected de facto leader and personification of the Frankenstein wannabe-super-state that has long gobbled up idealistic dreams of European unity.

Once, those dreams may have been about democracy, sovereign equality, prosperity for all, and peace. But real-existing EU-Europe is very different: the European dream has become a nightmare, dominated by a smug and self-empowered globalist establishment, thoroughly insulated from popular participation, economically stagnant and crisis-prone, unequal, and ever more militarist.

When von der Leyen boasted that, in effect, during her tenure EU-Europe had become “stronger” and “more independent,” while “securing its prosperity” and increasing armament spending “by 80% in the last five years alone,” only the last point bore any resemblance to reality, as the preponderant majority of the over 450 million EU citizens – really subjects – experience it.

Read more
Von der Leyen calls for NATO-style article 4 as EU sinks into cost crisis: As it happened

But there is no misery a Eurocrat worth her (or his!) salt cannot make worse. Now von der Leyen seems hellbent on taking the worst of bad old German traditions to a whole new, all-EU level. As is well known from the history of the last two world wars, Germany, not once but twice, first deftly maneuvered itself into being surrounded by (mostly) enemies and then lost, the first time crushingly, the second time even worse, in fact so badly that it took a short half-century (and much Russian goodwill, as it happens) to put the country together again.

The Kaiser’s Germany and the Fuhrer’s were – to be fair, even to the Kaiser – quite different, but what their establishments had in common was a bad case of Germanophrenia, a relative of the contemporary Russophrenia syndrome: The core delusion of Russophrenia, as it is now ravaging Western minds, is to hallucinate Russia as on the verge of collapse and of conquering the world at the same time. Those afflicted by Germanophrenia believed Germany was in existential danger but also capable of taking on Europe, at least, and, if need be, the world, too.

Enter the all-EU version, compliments of the very, very German von der Leyen. Quoting Charles Dickens’ already much overused “it was the best of times, it was the worst of times” in her impeccably Germanic English, von der Leyen proceeded to do two things: assert that the EU is at peak strength and, at the same time, as precarious as ever.

Clearly aware that sane listeners would find that combination of claims extremely counterintuitive, she insisted that even if they “may seem incompatible,” they are still both true. Orwell for beginners, really: two plus two is five if Big Sister from the Commission says so.

The Bundeswehr Honor Guard in Bruehl, Germany, July 17, 2026. © Picture alliance/Getty Images © Getty Images

Inducing debilitating cognitive dissonance, though, is the least of von der Leyen’s powers. The real payload of her rambling speech was her combative declaration of defiance, if not war, against, in essence, almost everyone who matters on planet Earth.

In true paranoid fashion, von der Leyen first declared that the EU faced a “hostile world,” no less. Then she got more specific: Russia – surprise, surprise – led her list of enemies, and she, in effect, congratulated herself for ridding the EU of a “toxic” dependence on fossil fuels. What a way to describe cutting yourself off from a reliable and comparatively inexpensive energy source to shift to exorbitant prices and uncertain delivery from, for instance, the unpredictable US and the war-torn and blockade-prone Middle East!

She also had tough words and warnings for China. Those must be seen in the context of ongoing EU attempts to play hardball on trade with Beijing. Desperate to make up for the sharp decline in European industrial competitiveness, especially among automakers, the old continent – once happily exploiting the rest of the world for its own gain – has discovered what von der Leyen and her officials consider fair.

But throwing down the gauntlet to China and Russia – the core of the emerging multipolar order – was not enough for von der Leyen in attack mode. Surprisingly, the same woman who almost literally kissed Donald Trump’s feet at Turnberry, delivering – so much, by the way, capitulation in the form of her claim that the EU is “the greatest trading power on the planet” – loaded her speech with barely concealed challenges to the US. That is, the much diminished but still regrettably powerful center of the old West, as well as the state on which the EU is, of course, toxically dependent in reality.

Read more
Faith in fakes: How anti-Russian hysteria is driving the EU’s drone hoax

The single most aggressive of von der Leyen’s sallies against Washington was her bizarre call for granting Canada “associate membership,” a status that does not even exist under the EU treaties, would require the very unlikely agreement of all 27 member governments, and makes no sense geographically or geopolitically.

But while unrealistic, the idea can still make Washington very angry indeed. President Donald Trump has already warned that he considers the idea a “hostile act” and is prepared to escalate his economic warfare against the EU. Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney, who was in Strasbourg for von der Leyen’s strange offer, has already entered damage-control mode.

But then again, von der Leyen’s real motive in suggesting a Canadian-EU play that can only be against US interests may be something else entirely. In true von der Leyen spirit, the EU has recently made much noise about claiming interests and, quite simply, a say in the Arctic. That makes fairly little sense unless you count Greenland as “Danish,” which it is formally but hardly in reality. Not to mention the well-known US ambitions to take it over in one way or another. Some creative minds may have realized that adding Canada’s northern coastlines would help make Arctic ambitions more plausible.

And that, in turn, may well explain the speed and ferocity of the US response. In other words, the challenge to Washington may be even more significant than “merely” offering Canada a counterweight to traditional and entrenched US hegemony. If the Arctic is the real target, the stakes could not be higher. Way to go, Ursula: your EU against everyone at once. Some of your German ancestors would have been so proud.

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