Our Monday News Analysis | What the World THINKS Now!

Living Words from John Paul II | ‘The Wilderness Will Become a Garden of Justice and Peace’

“Jews honor the Almighty as the protector of the human person
and the God of the promises of life.

Christians know that love is why God enters into relationships with human beings
and that love is the response he demands.

For Muslims, God is good and can fill the believer with his mercies and compassion.

Nourished by these convictions, Jews, Christians, and Muslims cannot accept that the earth be afflicted by hatred or that humanity be overwhelmed by endless wars.

Yes! We must find within us the courage for peace.
We must implore from on High the gift of peace.
And this peace will spread like a soothing balm if we travel non-stop on the road to reconciliation. Then the wilderness will become a garden where justice will flourish, and justice will bring peace (Isaiah 32: 15-16).”

Saint Pope John Paul II
ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II
THE CONCERT DEDICATED TO THE THEME
OF RECONCILIATION AMONG JEWS, CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS
Paul VI Audience Hall
Saturday, 17 January 2004

Building the Bridge Foundation

FROM THE BRIDGE| Build The Bridge Before The Last Light Fades

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

I started young and, at 76 today, ‘I’ve been there. I’ve done that’. Now I care about the people I meet and the food I eat. At 17, I drank unbottled water in Sevilla. On the train to Barcelona, I defecated 29 times, then collapsed at the station the next day and was quarantined in the hospital. Two weeks later, an emergency medical specialist assured me I didn’t have cholera. My telegram to my parents read: “sick in Barcelona.” I didn’t mention I was stuck—locked up—in the hospital.

You’re looking at my home. I was born in this region in 1950, as a refugee in first class aboard the S. S. Atlantis, a British ship, on the Red Sea (20.0 N, 38.0 E), with dual British and Dutch nationality and a Jewish-Christian-Muslim heritage. The region is home.

My birth certificate is a scribble in the ship’s log, sealed with the official ship’s stamp and the captain’s signature. He added ‘Atlantis’ to my name—“duty and tradition,” he imposed on my parents, so I was told. “Who is Atlantis?” I asked my father when I opened my first passport at age 11. “You,” he said, introducing me to myself. That’s when I learned I’m even more European than most: a dual national, British and Dutch, no less—a product and beneficiary of British and Dutch colonialism. In 1968, the Hawaiians told me I look Kamaʻāina, or ‘local boy,’ and offered me 10 percent discounts all over the islands.

...

The wars on Europe’s Eastern Front are beginning to simmer down. By now, Building the Bridge readers know we’re not talking about a single war between Russia and Ukraine, but a global one—a subdued World War III: Western hegemony, or unipolar autocracy, versus multipolar democracies. The West sought to dominate all of Eurasia and East Asia, including Russia and China. This wasn’t its first attempt to colonize the world. The West’s latest attempt to conquer Russia ended in miserable failure.

Wars in West Asia (the Middle East) are largely driven by Western influence and efforts to control the region. Western elites consider all of Earth's natural resources their own. The oil in the Middle East belongs more to the Seven Sisters than to the people in the region. Today, a conflict worthy of war pits the original Seven Sisters against the new Seven Sisters.

The Seven Sisters were the seven major oil companies that dominated global oil production, refining, and distribution between the 1940s and the 1970s.

The Seven Sisters consisted of three oil companies formed after the breakup of Standard Oil by the US government, supplemented by four other companies. Through their oligopoly, the Seven Sisters profited from growing oil demand and made enormous profits.

Because they were well organized and operated as a cartel, the Seven Sisters imposed their will on Third World oil producers. The Seven Sisters' power diminished significantly when Arab states gained control over oil production and prices, especially after OPEC's formation and the 1973 oil crisis.

Of the Seven Sisters, only four remain today as independent companies: ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP. Their influence on the global oil market has diminished somewhat as oil producers in Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Venezuela, Brazil, and Malaysia, among others, have grown.

Before the 1973 oil crisis, the Seven Sisters controlled about 85 percent of the global oil market.[ 1 ] Don't be misled into believing the original Seven Sisters are less powerful than the new Seven Sisters. The original Seven Sisters still control the global production, marketing, distribution, and sale of their end products.

After the 1973 oil crisis, oil and gas production shifted to the OPEC cartel and to state oil companies such as Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, China National Petroleum Corporation, National Iranian Oil Company, Petróleos de Venezuela, Petrobras, and Petronas. In 2007, the Financial Times called these the "new Seven Sisters". [ 2 ]

That’s why the Middle East is a tinderbox. Since World War II, the Middle East has been a de facto protectorate of Western hegemony. Israel has been, since the 19th century, the proxy and enforcer of Western interests and geopolitical policies in the Middle East. Israel has served its Western masters as a de facto NATO member state. And the true master in the West is the mindset obsessed with:

               What is Ours is Ours.
               What is Yours is Ours also.
               It’s either Our way or the highway.
               If you’re not for US, you’re against US.
               If you don’t do it Our way, you’re dead meat.

...

The wars in Europe are more or less over. Russia won. The wars in the Middle East are far from over, and the jury is still out. From a Western perspective, the best thing that could happen is for Iran to destroy the Middle East. If Iran retaliates by blowing up the Gulf States, it will cut off its own fingers and bleed to death. The West will deploy its military resources to help secure oil production facilities as a ‘friendly’ gesture, feigning support for the Arab dynasties as they face an uncertain future—and, ‘of course,’ to help spread democracy, if you believe that.

But perhaps Iran isn’t that dumb. Maybe it will succeed in destroying the Israeli-NATO military bases—including the American bases that occupied, rather than protected, the Gulf states—and the NATO-Israeli nuclear arsenal located there, while hopefully avoiding major population centers. Meanwhile, the world needs Russia to produce and distribute more oil and gas to make up for what the West is withholding from the Middle East. Oy Ve!

It’s the West that provoked the war against Iran. We’re clear on that, right?

...

In last Friday’s edition, 15 October 2026, we continued comparing the Building the Bridge agenda—building, not burning, bridges—by examining Secretary Marco Rubio’s views on neo-colonialism alongside Russia’s Alexander Dugin: The Special Military Operation is a War Of Civilizations – A Clash of Worlds, Not Just Armies

Alexander Dugin explains why the unipolar world refuses to die, why multipolarity remains dangerously divided, and why a global catastrophe may be approaching.

Rubio may overlook a key difference: unlike centuries ago, when we conquered foreign lands by force, mutual deterrence can now induce cooperation and encourage building rather than destruction. Yet mutual deterrence also risks burning bridges – mutual annihilation –which people worldwide would clearly prefer to avoid in favor of cooperation.

...

But something doesn’t add up. Does Secretary Rubio’s diatribe, “Under President Trump, the United States has chosen to pursue national power unapologetically,” mean the U.S. is rekindling unipolar autocracy, masquerading as the sole king of the hill, the only Sheriff in town? I don’t think so. That would contradict The Trump Doctrine: ‘Nation Builders Harm Societies,’ Speech, Riyadh 13 May 2025, the cornerstone of Trump’s foreign policy. President Trump’s views differ radically from the neo-colonialists’ (Neocons’) objectives, which remain deeply rooted throughout the West but not for long.

To ‘Make America Great Again,’ the U.S. must prioritize its needs and interests over wasting blood and treasure abroad. It will remain formidable, and mutual deterrence prevents any nation from becoming invincible.

The 21st century will belong to Eurasia and the Americas, but Europe is missing out right now. Its neo-colonialist elite wants more. They want to own Russia and demand that the U.S. help defeat, conquer, and divide Russia for control of the Eurasian bridge. But the Eurasian fruits – oil, gas, essential minerals, wheat, etc. – are there now for the picking at a fair and honest price. It’s time to throw in the towel: NATO has lost. Let’s live and let live, rather than be tyrannized by a minority bent on killing and dying.

This is what President Trump meant when he said, “This war should never have happened.”

GUEST EDITORIAL | THE DOWNFALL OF A MANUFACTURED ICON

The Political Obituary of Zelensky’s Presidency

Volodymyr Zelensky’s carefully cultivated wartime image is cracking. Its collapse could reopen the door to diplomacy.

Editor’s note | Donald Trump’s latest attack on Zelensky—calling for elections, revisiting missed peace opportunities, and suggesting reduced US intelligence support—may be more than rhetoric. American backing is vital to Ukraine’s war effort; if Washington steps back, the battlefield and political narrative could shift.

Condensed from Prof. Glenn Diesen’s op-ed · 16 October 2026

Prof. Glenn Diesen’s article was initially published in Die Weltwoche: “Zerfall einer fabrizierten Ikone” - https://weltwoche.de/story/zerfall-einer-fabrizierten-ikone/

By Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
16 October 2026

President Trump has recently lashed out at President Zelensky, urging Ukrainian elections and arguing Zelensky should have accepted a better deal two years ago. Reports that the US may cut intelligence-sharing are significant: Ukraine cannot fight Russia without US support. Trump’s shifting positions make the rhetoric’s immediate impact hard to assess. More broadly, his scolding reflects a wider trend: the collapse of a manufactured democratic icon.

What Does Trump Aim to Achieve?

The impact of Trump’s latest tirade against Zelensky is unclear; he acted similarly during their widely publicized February 28, 2025, Oval Office confrontation.

The first hypothesis is that Trump’s comments signal a shift away from Zelensky as the US seeks to hand the war to Europe. Washington believed escalation could pressure Moscow to end the war, and Marco Rubio expressed optimism during a 40-day campaign of deep strikes on Russian civilian infrastructure, meant to make civilians feel the war. Instead, Russians now view the conflict—accurately described as a NATO proxy war—as an existential threat. After Russia imposed a naval blockade and heavily attacked Ukrainian logistics and energy infrastructure, Trump may see that the strategy has failed, and the war is nearing its endgame. The US may now seek to withdraw, either by ending the war or handing it to Europe.

The second hypothesis is that Trump’s comments were a knee-jerk response to Zelensky’s tactless remarks about the US–Russia diesel deal. The failed Iran war has pushed Trump to stabilize energy prices and project control before the midterms. He blames weak US leadership for America’s decline and says he can restore its greatness. While many see his crude, unilateral actions as violations of norms and agreements, Trump views independent action in the national interest as strength. Because Zelensky relies on US support to stay in power and fight Russia, Trump’s response aimed to punish his criticism and warn others not to challenge his authority.

The third hypothesis is that this is a swing strategy to keep all sides uncertain and strengthen the US's negotiating position. Zelensky and European leaders are warned that US military and financial support could vanish, while Russia is urged to concede before Washington changes course. This approach works only if all sides believe the US can maneuver between them rather than lock into one position. Pressuring everyone also reinforces the US’s role as mediator—an awkward one, given its role in instigating and prolonging the war since 2014.

The Manufacture of a Democratic Icon

In context, President Zelensky’s image as a PR project is gradually collapsing. He began his political career on a peace platform, supporting language rights in eastern Ukraine and peace with Russia. In 2019, he won 73% of the vote, [of the 64% of Ukrainians who voted], promising to implement the Minsk Agreement, engage with Donbas, and make peace. Western NGOs opposed most of his platform, while US-funded far-right militias threatened to kill him if he kept his promises. Zelensky eventually fell in line, betraying his democratic mandate.

After Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, media portrayals of Ukraine and Zelensky changed overnight. Vogue and other publications recast him as democracy’s besieged defender and Ukraine as a beacon of freedom rather than a corruption hub. Far-right groups with fascist insignia and Second World War-inspired ideas were reframed as reformed freedom fighters. Restrictions on language rights, political opposition, media, and the Orthodox Church were justified as defenses against Russia’s hybrid war. Narratives that Ukraine was winning with few casualties sustained Western support, while brutal conscription and ‘busification’ were ignored or dismissed as Russian efforts to discredit Zelensky. Cast as Churchill confronting Putin-as-Hitler, Zelensky became a symbol of good versus evil, and critics quickly smeared criticism as propaganda.

The Incremental Fall of Zelensky

Zelensky’s image has gradually unraveled. Authoritarianism, corruption, fascist groups, ‘busification’, high casualties, and other issues have eroded his image as a beloved democratic leader. When former Ukrainian Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov became an opposition figure, Italians helped shore up Zelensky by hiring him as an adviser. The West also needs Zelensky to sustain the claim that it “stands with Ukraine”. Though most Ukrainians favor a negotiated settlement, polls suggest, how can Europeans justify boycotting diplomacy while pushing to deport refugees, lower the conscription age, conscript women, or otherwise prolong the war? With Zelensky repeating his Western handlers’ talking points, the proxy war to the last Ukrainian can be framed to Western audiences as “supporting Ukraine”.

Trump bears some responsibility. Blaming NATO expansion and criticizing Zelensky may have been negotiating tactics, but he challenged the “unprovoked” Russian invasion narrative and the Churchillian worship of Zelensky. The success of his tactics is unclear, yet questioning that consensus enabled broader criticism of Zelensky. Casting the war as good versus evil portrays force as the route to peace and diplomacy as appeasement. As Zelensky's manufactured image crumbles, so may the proxy-war narrative. Perhaps diplomacy will soon be decriminalized.

The post-mortem on Zelensky’s presidency and manufactured image is tragic. He campaigned on peace but was drawn into efforts to use Ukraine as a proxy to weaken Russia. On March 27, 2022, before the UK and US sabotaged the Istanbul peace agreement, Zelensky told The Economist:

               “There are those in the West who don’t mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives.”

As his presidency ends, another chance for peace may emerge.

PROF. JOHN MEARSHEIMER: CAN TRUMP BLUFF IRAN INTO SURRENDER?

Judge Andrew Napolitano’s interview with Prof. John J. Mearsheimer sharply critiques U.S. policy toward Ukraine, Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. They question official claims, strategic coherence, and presidential control, warning that escalation could worsen regional instability, economic pressures, and nuclear risks. The discussion depicts a reactive, fragmented policy constrained by military, economic, and institutional limits, with no credible end state.

Watch the Video Here (36 minutes, 09 seconds)

Host: Judge Andrew Napolitano
Judging Freedom
13 October 2026

The Deep State Mindset: Allegiance, Institutional Power and Coercive Diplomacy

Power can outlast presidents through agencies, secrets, and careers, providing continuity while sometimes resisting elected authority. Yet suspicion is not proof: claims of divided allegiance should be tested against lawful orders, authority, conduct, concealment, interests, and consequences.

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt argue that pro-Israel advocates have shaped U.S. Middle East policy, occasionally against American interests. Their case concerns influence, not ancestry, faith, or automatic disloyalty. Judge Andrew Napolitano similarly asks whether policy is constitutionally authorized, serves the United States, and remains accountable to Congress, law, and truthful reporting.

Mike Huckabee presents the U.S.–Israel relationship as a durable partnership grounded in shared values, security, threats, and biblical heritage. Critics fear this outlook can blur national representation. His remark accepting Israeli control of broad biblical territory intensified concern, although he later called it hyperbole and denied expansionist intent.

Conduct remains decisive. Reports allege a senior aide suppressed or rewrote embassy assessments critical of Israel; Huckabee denies this, and his knowledge is unclear. If proven, such interference could distort Washington’s judgment.

Judge allegiance by deeds, power by law, and accusations by evidence alone.

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

To be continued on Friday, 30 October 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.

JOHN J. MEARSHEIMER: RUSSIA’S EXISTENTIAL WAR & THE RISE OF A POST-WESTERN WORLD

Prof. Mearsheimer argues that the post-Cold War liberal order weakened as unipolarity gave way to competition among the United States, China, and Russia.

• Europe faces simultaneous strategic dependence on the United States and deeply damaged relations with Russia, leaving its security position increasingly precarious.
• Trump’s attempts to settle the Ukraine war are portrayed as constrained by Ukraine, European governments, and the US national-security establishment.
• Mearsheimer assesses Russia as advancing in a war of attrition while Ukraine faces economic destruction, manpower shortages, and uncertain Western support.
• The Iran and Saudi–Houthi conflicts threaten regional stability and global energy flows, while the United States appears to lack decisive military or diplomatic options.
• The concluding lesson is that wars are easier to begin than to end, and leaders often compare imperfect settlements with ideal outcomes rather than with worsening alternatives.

Watch the Video Here (61 minutes, 01 second)

Host: Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
17 October 2026

The West's Self-Inflicted Wounds

By John J. Mearsheimer
Substack.com
18 October 2026

On October 16, 2026, I appeared on Glenn Diesen’s popular podcast to discuss the ongoing war in Ukraine, conflicts across the Middle East, and their broader implications for Europe and the West. I argued that European elites and much of the US national security establishment are wrong to believe that continued support for Ukraine’s war against Russia serves Western interests. Ukraine is likely to be devastated, and the war—along with Middle East conflicts involving Iran and the Houthis—is likely to further damage an international economy already under tremendous stress. In addition, relations between Europe and Russia will remain poisonous for years, if not decades, and the war in Ukraine has seriously weakened NATO.

...

Power, Cooperation, and the Human Choice

What I hear in Prof. Glenn Diesen and Prof. John Mearsheimer’s argument is the quiet rumble of power shifting beneath world affairs. In a multipolar age, nations circle one another like wary ships on a darkening sea: alliances become lifelines, diplomacy bends with the wind, and survival often eclipses principle.

Through this lens, Ukraine, Iran, and the Saudi–Houthi conflict look like sparks from the same hard machinery of anarchy. Yet liberalism opens a window in this fortress. It reminds us that alliances can be bridges, not chains; that trade and institutions can ease fear; and that law can still give smaller voices a place to stand. The conversation powerfully captures the strain of Western overreach, but, to me, it leaves too little room for resilience, compromise, and political choice. Realism explains the storm; liberalism asks whether we have to sail straight into it.

Together, Prof. Diesen and Prof. Mearsheimer offer an analysis that is compelling at its strongest—and most vulnerable when it overlooks that history is shaped not just by pressure, but by people.

ESSAY | When the Old World Goes Dark

Why Reciprocal Security—Not Maximalist Victory—Offers The Clearest Path Away From Wider War

Photo by Abraham A. van Kempen, The Olympic Torch Sydney, Australia

By Abraham A. van Kempen
18 October 2026

Introduction

• The post-Cold War order is breaking down as rival powers define security in ways that threaten one another.
• Moral resolve, without a settlement within reach, risks worsening the catastrophe.

This essay outlines a practical reciprocal-security program: a more secure Ukraine, NATO-Russia restraint, and a Gulf compact for nuclear transparency, open shipping, missile restraint, infrastructure protection, and reversible sanctions relief.

A Path Between the Storm and the Bridge

Outside, October wind brushes the windows, while headlines stream like a dark river after rain: Ukraine, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Houthis, Gaza, NATO, oil, drones, missiles. One crisis flows into the next, until geopolitics feels like violent weather beyond our control. Yet every headline carries a human pulse—a family listening for an explosion, a soldier watching the horizon, a pensioner studying an energy bill. We stand on the riverbank, wondering how the bright promises of the post–Cold War era led us into this gathering dark.

That question ran through Prof. Glenn Diesen’s conversation with Prof. John J. Mearsheimer. Their answers may not have been comforting, and we don’t need them to be. When the lights go out, what matters is having enough clarity to find the bridge.

The Morning After the “End of History”

After the Cold War, the West convinced itself that history had reached the sea. Liberal democracy had prevailed, the Soviet Union had disappeared, and the United States stood alone at the summit, sunlight on the water below. The moment was intoxicating. Borders would soften, trade would tame rivalries, and institutions would constrain power. Sheltered by America, Europe believed the hard winter had passed.

“History had not ended. It had merely stepped backstage to change costumes.”

But power does not rest beneath good intentions. A liberal order led by a single dominant state becomes harder to sustain when other great powers reject its premises. We may condemn this reality, but a river does not change course simply because we dislike where it flows.

Europe Beneath a Borrowed Umbrella

In Europe, the postwar arrangement felt almost miraculous. America served as both a breakwater and a nuclear shield as Europeans built prosperity in a sheltered harbor. A borrowed umbrella becomes frightening when thunder rolls in; a borrowed harbor becomes dangerous when its guardian ship turns toward another sea.

Europe now faces poisoned relations with Russia. Whatever settlement emerges in Ukraine, resentment will linger long after the smoke clears: Russians will remember European weapons and sanctions, while Europeans will remember destroyed cities and their fear of Russian power. Meanwhile, Washington is shifting its strategic focus toward East Asia, where China can challenge US economic, technological, and military power. In a major Asian crisis, American resources will follow.

Europe could soon find itself standing in a cold doorway: estranged from Russia, reliant on America, entangled with China, and unsure of its own strength. This is neither submission to Moscow nor an abandonment of NATO. It is adulthood—the moment a continent must learn whether it can build its own bridge through the storm.

The War That Devours Its Future

In Ukraine, theories of power become broken bridges, darkened homes, empty classrooms, and names carved into stone. The strategic map bleeds into the family album. Mearsheimer’s assessment is stark: Russia considers the conflict existential and will absorb extraordinary costs. Europe seeks leverage by helping Ukraine resist, but that pressure also strengthens Moscow’s incentive to dismantle Ukraine’s ability to function.

This is the escalation’s cruel machinery: each side sees the other’s blow as proof that restraint is dangerous, and the current quickens toward the falls. Russia’s campaign extends beyond the trenches to Ukraine’s nervous system—its ports, energy, transportation, communications, and supply depots. A nation can lose ground and endure; it is far harder to survive when Russia steadily cuts the arteries carrying warmth, food, movement, and hope.

Russia is advancing slowly, relying on firepower rather than manpower. Ukraine is grappling with soldier shortages, damaged infrastructure, and an ever-increasing reliance on Western funding and weapons. Attritional wars can be deceptive: they are measured not only by territory but also by industry, air defense, recruitment, credit, electricity, and time.

Western aid is not limitless. Politics can shift, turning yesterday’s generous package into tomorrow’s inadequate lifeline. Moral perseverance, then, needs an honest destination. “Fight on” sounds brave, but without a plausible shore, courage can become a beautiful word painted on a vehicle racing toward a cliff.

Two things can be true at once: Ukraine has reason to fear domination, and staying on the current course may deepen the catastrophe. Strategy must account for both.

The Deal Nobody Can Sell

Trump enters convinced he can strike a deal: end the war in Ukraine and improve relations with Russia. Yet he repeatedly clashes with Zelensky, Europe, and the US national-security establishment. The pattern repeats: Trump pushes for accommodation; Ukraine, Europe, and US hardliners resist; he threatens, then hesitates. He also wants Russian energy back on global markets as the conflict with Iran strains supplies. Ukraine and the Middle East have become strands of the same tightening rope.

Coercing Zelensky is dangerous. Cutting off intelligence, weapons, or satellite support might force concessions—or hasten Ukraine’s collapse and weaken Washington’s bargaining position. Ukraine’s long-range strikes on Russian energy facilities are among its few effective tools. Asking Kyiv to abandon them while continuing the fight takes away one of its few remaining punches.

The impasse endures: Zelensky resists, Europe backs him, Washington is divided, and the war continues to claim lives and foreclose possibilities. Diplomacy’s tragedy is that leaders may see the far bank but cannot survive telling their people what the crossing will cost. After promises of victory, compromise can feel like betrayal.

A leader may see the bridge and still fail to persuade the country to cross it.

Fire Along the Arteries of the World

If Ukraine is one furnace, the Middle East is another—and both heat the same global system.

The Houthis can strike Saudi oil facilities, airports, and Yanbu, the Red Sea terminus of the East–West Pipeline. Iran can threaten shipping from Hormuz to the Gulf of Oman. These distant names mark the channels of global energy. The global economy is a living body: pipelines are arteries, tankers are blood cells, and ports are valves. When missiles close a passage or set a refinery ablaze, prices rise, ships scatter, industry slows, and families thousands of miles away feel its pulse falter.

Saudi Arabia faces a resilient adversary that can inflict pain. Washington may recognize the danger without having a solution. American power is immense, but not divine. Carriers cannot compel wisdom; bombs can shatter concrete without forcing surrender; sanctions can drain a society without filling the empty cup of agreement.

Me in 2016, age 66, having tea, training to cross the Dead Sea on my 70th birthday. Why don’t more people have tea with newly-found friends?

Iran reveals the same limit: if a long bombing campaign failed politically, intensity alone will not make a shorter one succeed. Saudi Arabia, too, may defer concessions until tomorrow’s terms are worse. Only the fear of collapse may force what diplomacy cannot achieve.

The Moral Fog

A lighthouse loses its authority the moment it chooses whom to save. Beneath today’s wars lies that deeper wound: the West’s fading claim to moral leadership. Gaza has exposed the distance between a liberal order’s language of rules and human dignity and the suffering shown on our screens. Western principles may not be false, but applied selectively, they resemble tools of power. Alliances and financial systems may endure while belief drains away—a house secured by locks rather than trust.

Locks may secure a house, but only trust makes it a home. Trust returns slowly, through actions that remain steady after disappointment. That is why I believe we must build bridges where others see walls. A bridge does not deny injury or abandon justice. It lets memory speak without becoming inherited hatred. It makes security reciprocal: two shores held together by one span.

“Burn a bridge and both sides are stranded; keep it standing and peace remains possible.”

The Divide We Must Cross

Any Ukraine settlement must begin by naming the distance between the two sides. Russia demands Ukrainian neutrality, limits on its military and foreign support, recognition of Russian territorial claims, and relief from sanctions. Ukraine demands sovereignty, credible security guarantees, a capable defense, no legal recognition of annexation, the return of prisoners and deported children, reconstruction, and accountability.

The paradox is brutal: what Russia calls security, Ukraine fears as subordination; what Ukraine calls security, Russia fears as encirclement. No agreement can satisfy every maximal claim. But it can prevent strategic defeat for everyone.

A workable framework would freeze the fighting without recognizing annexation; defer final territorial status; protect language, property, movement, and return; and pair Ukraine’s temporary non-membership in NATO with binding guarantees, rapid resupply, air defense, and a strong territorial-defense force. Ukraine would host no foreign combat bases or nuclear weapons, while Russia would gain no veto over ordinary Ukrainian self-defense.

Russia and NATO would create reciprocal zones of restraint, withdraw specified forces and strike systems, limit exercises, exchange data, maintain hotlines, and permit inspections. Verified compliance would unlock phased sanctions relief, reconstruction funds, and restored trade. Violations would suspend those benefits. Ukraine and Russia must remain the principal parties, supported—not replaced—by accepted guarantors.

From Metaphor to Method

Peace needs engineering, not noble language. Ukraine and Russia could start with protected talks on civilian infrastructure, reciprocal no-strike zones, prisoner exchanges, and a pause in long-range attacks under neutral monitoring. Europe, Russia, and the United States should restore military hotlines and arms-control talks covering missiles, drones, nuclear posture, exercises, and incidents at sea and in the air.

The same logic applies elsewhere. Iran and the United States could begin with maritime deconfliction, safe shipping lanes, protection of civilian energy systems, verifiable nuclear limits, and staged sanctions relief. Saudi Arabia and the Houthis could pursue a renewable ceasefire, reopen transport links, exchange detainees, and ease restrictions on civilian goods. Israelis and Palestinians must put civilian protection first: sustained humanitarian access, hostage and prisoner exchanges, protection for hospitals and aid workers, and independent investigations of alleged abuses. No durable security can rest on permanent occupation, collective punishment, or denial of either people’s national existence.

“Peace becomes practical when concessions are answered, promises are verified, and people can imagine safety.”

A Measurable Gulf Settlement

The Gulf shows why restraint must be measurable. Much of the world’s maritime oil and liquefied natural gas passes through the Strait of Hormuz. War raises energy prices, insurance costs, and military spending while threatening ports, desalination plants, jobs, and ordinary kitchens.

I would begin with a 180-day stabilization accord leading to a three-year compact. The United States and Israel would halt strikes on Iran; Iran would halt attacks on Israel, US facilities, Gulf states, and shipping. All sides would protect nuclear sites and civilian infrastructure, while Oman and Qatar host coordination and international inspectors regain nuclear access.

Sanctions relief, reconstruction, insurance support, and trade would reopen in stages, subject to conditions. Each verified period without prohibited attacks would unlock the next benefit. A serious breach would freeze progress and trigger review—not automatic war. The rule is simple: protect civilians, keep shipping open, verify nuclear material, and restrain missiles.

What I Want to Ask You

When you hear “compromise,” do you hear weakness? When leaders propose talks, do you assume victory is the only honorable alternative? Let me ask you quietly: how many victories can a region survive?

Resolve is cinematic: it stands tall and never blinks. Prudence is quieter. It counts ammunition, listens for cracks, and wonders what comes after the cheering. Politics’ hardest sentence may be, “We cannot achieve everything we promised.” The next is, “The enemy has interests we must understand if we want the killing to stop.” Understanding is not surrender. A sailor must understand the storm without endorsing the wind.

What if every plan for another strike also had to describe the settlement it was meant to achieve? What if “as long as it takes” had to answer: to achieve what, at what cost, and with what chance of success? These questions are not weakness. They are the first measurements of a durable peace.

Before the Last Light Fades

Every war begins with clean arrows, bold goals, and an underestimated enemy. On paper, the river obeys the map. Then the map begins to bleed, and the river takes its own course. Months become years. Limited operations produce unlimited consequences. Pride hardens into sunk costs, and the dead become an argument for more death.

I do not offer effortless optimism. But I will not surrender to despair. Despair mistakes the present current for the river’s only course. Harder hope begins when slogans yield to verified commitments—protection for Ukraine, restraint from Russia, lower risk for NATO, open shipping in the Gulf, nuclear transparency, and civilian protection everywhere.

People beneath the jets and alarms are asking not to become sacrifices to pride. We can destroy every path back, or construct peace through deterrent guarantees, inspectable limits, and benefits that can be earned or withdrawn. The old world is growing dark. But darkness is not destiny. A lighthouse earns its authority by turning toward everyone in danger; our task is to finish the crossing before its last light disappears.

“Turn the light toward everyone. Build the bridge before it fades.”

Note: The settlement frameworks are the author’s analysis, not agreed negotiating texts. Quantitative assumptions and policy weights are illustrative rather than official forecasts.

References:

The Putin Doctrine: ‘A Unified European Home,’ Speech, Berlin Bundestag, 25 September 2001
The Putin Doctrine: ‘Security for One is Security for All,’ Speech, Munich, 10 February 2007
The Trump Doctrine: ‘Nation Builders Harm Societies,’ Speech, Riyadh,/ 13 May 2025
The Xi Jinping Doctrine: ‘Global Governance As a Shared Project,’ Speech, SCO Tianjin, 1 September 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading

A Free Trial for Life – SUBSCRIBE NOW!

• It's quick and straightforward.

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

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

• Please include your First and Last Name.

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

_________________________

Related Articles Recently Posted on www.buildingthebridgefoundation.com

OUR FRIDAY NEWS ANALYSIS

OUR WEDNESDAY NEWS ANALYSIS

OUR MONDAY EDITION

________________________

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