Our Friday News Analysis | What the World Reads Now!

On a Razor’s Edge …

EDITORIAL | Are World Leaders Dumb, Stupid, Sociopaths, or Psychopaths, or All of the Above (Part 11)?

Click here for Part 1
Click here for Part 2
Click here for Part 3
Click here for Part 4
Click here for Part 5
Click here for Part 6
Click here for Part 7
Click here for Part 8
Click here for Part 9
Click here for Part 10

On a Razor’s Edge

By Abraham A. van Kempen
15 August 2025

NO ZELENSKY, NO BRUSSELS, NO PROBLEM: HERE’S HOW PUTIN AND TRUMP’S ALASKA POWER MOVE WILL PLAY OUT

The Russia-US summit could reshape the Ukraine war – and leave Europe watching from the sidelines.

FILE PHOTO: Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump. © Kremlin Press Office / Handout / Anadolu Agency / Getty Images

By Dmitry Suslov, member of the Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, deputy director of World Economy and International Politics at Moscow’s Higher School of Economics, and Valdai Club expert.

HomeRussia & FSU
13 August 2025

Annotated by Abraham A. van Kempen

On Friday, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump will meet in Alaska. This is the first full Russia-US summit since June 2021 in Geneva, and the first official Russian visit to America since Dmitry Medvedev’s 2010 trip during the "reset.”

It will be the first meeting of Russian and US leaders in Alaska, the closest US state to Russia, separated only by the Bering Strait, which was once part of the Russian Empire. The symbolism is clear: distant from Ukraine and Western Europe, but near Russia. Neither Zelensky nor the EU leaders will attend.

The message is clear: Moscow and Washington decide on Ukraine first and inform others later. As Trump said, “they hold all the cards.”

From Geneva to Alaska: A shift in tone

The Alaska summit signals a shift from the Biden years, when such meetings were unthinkable and Washington prioritized isolating Russia. Now, Putin will visit Alaska, and Trump plans to return to Russia.

Read more
Why Trump wants Putin in Alaska – and not anywhere else

Moderate optimism surrounds the meeting. Such summits are rarely just talks; they follow lengthy negotiations. The idea arose after three hours of Moscow talks on August 6 between Putin and Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff. Russian aide Yuri Ushakov called Washington’s offer "very acceptable," hinting Putin and Trump may arrive in Alaska with a preliminary deal or truce framework already in place.

Why Trump needs this

Trump wants the summit to succeed, but his attempt to isolate Moscow by pressing China and India to stop buying Russian oil backfired. It triggered the worst US-India crisis in 25 years, strengthened India-Moscow ties, and led to a thaw in relations between India and China, with Modi attending the SCO summit.

BRICS, which Trump has vowed to weaken, has grown more cohesive. The Alaska summit is his chance to escape his self-made trap of pressuring Moscow through Beijing and New Delhi, and to show Ukraine results as a diplomatic victory.

Why Russia does too

A successful Moscow summit would show that talk of “isolation” is outdated, strengthening Russia’s position with the “global majority” and exposing Western Europe’s reduced influence. It would deepen the transatlantic divide, diminishing Brussels’ claim to be Russia’s main rival.

Read more
Cold, rugged land, cold, hard bargain: Putin and Trump head off to Alaska

Most importantly, Washington has little leverage over Russia, especially on Ukraine. If the summit results in a joint Russian–American vision for a truce, it will likely favor Moscow over Kiev or Brussels. If Western Europeans try to derail it, the US might withdraw all aid to Ukraine, including intelligence support, speeding Kiev’s defeat.

Resistance at home and abroad

Not everyone in Russia cheers. Many prominent “Z”-aligned war correspondents see the war as unfinished and oppose any truce. They are asked to follow the official line. If the Alaska meeting results in a deal, they are expected to support it or use "cooling" language. The Kremlin bets it can manage this dissent.

Western Europe will watch from the sidelines, with leaders scrambling for secondary information. This highlights a humiliating reality: for nearly a century, Europe’s security decisions will be made without Italy, France, and Germany in the room.

Beyond Ukraine

The location suggests other agenda items. Arctic cooperation, which has been frozen since 2014, could be revived. Both sides would benefit from joint development, and a deal would serve as a political symbol of cooperation, despite past issues.

Arms control will be discussed. Moscow’s decision to end its moratorium on deploying intermediate-range missiles was likely timed to influence talks. Strategic stability after the New START Treaty expires in February 2026 will be a key concern.

The stakes

If Alaska delivers, it could reshape the Ukraine conflict and Russia-US ties. A joint plan would marginalize Kiev and Brussels, shifting diplomacy to Moscow and Washington, and reopening cooperation on global issues, such as the Arctic and arms control.

If Trump yields to EU pressure, Moscow will keep fighting, expecting US involvement to fade. Russia’s position is stronger than it was two years ago.

What’s different now is that the two powers with “all the cards” are finally back at the same table – and Western Europe is on the outside looking in.

SCOTT RITTER: RUSSIA ENDS LIMITS ON INTERMEDIATE-RANGE MISSILES & CHANGES THE BALANCE OF POWER

Scott Ritter, a former Major and Intelligence Officer, as well as a UN Weapons Inspector, shares his perspective that the power dynamics in Europe may shift as Russia announces it will no longer adhere to the self-imposed limits on deploying nuclear-capable intermediate-range missiles.

Watch the Video Here (32 minutes, 21 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
9 August 2025

The INF Treaty, Nuclear Escalation, and the Deployment of New Systems

Scott Ritter, a former U.S. Marine major and UN weapons inspector, discusses recent updates in nuclear arms control, focusing on the INF Treaty, its history, the treaty's breakdown, and Russia’s new missile deployments.

The INF Treaty: Background and Significance

The INF Treaty, signed in 1987, eliminated nuclear missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 km and helped reduce Cold War tensions. The US left the treaty in 2019, prompting Russia to promise not to deploy these missiles unless the US did. Recently, President Putin announced Russia would no longer follow these limits.

Historical Context and Technical Developments

Scott Ritter’s INF inspector experience offers a unique view on treaty enforcement. Intermediate-range missiles, once standard in Europe, were deemed crucial only in the late 1970s. The Soviet SS-20 missile, capable of carrying three warheads and highly mobile, drastically altered the strategic landscape, threatening European security and NATO’s deterrence credibility. This prompted the US to deploy weapons like the Pershing II.

The Pershing II missile could reach Moscow in twelve minutes, increasing the nuclear threat. American developments like the Ohio-class submarine with Trident missiles heightened danger, raising fears of accidental global disaster.

Negotiations and the Zero Option

Acknowledging the rising dangers, the US and the Soviet Union signed the INF Treaty, which eliminated intermediate- and short-range missiles. Strict monitoring and inspections ensured compliance for over ten years, with satellite and technical methods maintaining oversight.

Controversies and Alleged Violations

Over time, suspicions grew. Russia worried US missile defense tests might breach the treaty, while the US questioned Russian missile developments, especially the RS-26 and 9M927 systems, alleging non-compliance. Ritter believes the US misunderstood Russian actions, particularly regarding ground-launched cruise missile tests.

The US Withdrawal and Arms Race Dynamics

The US withdrew from the treaty to keep flexibility against China’s expanding arsenal. Soon after, it tested a ground-launched missile system, confirming Russian concerns. The absence of the INF Treaty and the deployment of intermediate-range missiles have weakened trust between Russia and the US.

Russia initially refrained from deploying new systems, contingent on the US doing the same in Europe. After the US deployed systems and developed hypersonic missiles like Dark Eagle, Russia accelerated its development, focusing on the Archnik missile.

The Introduction of Archnik and Its Impact

Archnik, a sophisticated missile with advanced boosters and warheads, is now being produced and deployed in Russia and Belarus. It can carry conventional or nuclear warheads. Its range and power are similar to the Cold War-era SS-20 missile, with no current NATO equivalent.

Archnik's deployment poses risks to European cities, enhancing Russia's military options and fueling the arms race. Recent incidents and statements from US and Russian officials have escalated tensions as each seeks strategic dominance.

Arms Control Challenges and Economic Implications

The discussion reveals that arms control agreements, such as the INF Treaty and New START, are falling apart, harming Russian military cities that rely heavily on missile production. Trust between the US and Russia has also worsened, as the US is perceived to use arms control for its gain.

Conclusion

The current situation indicates a gradual increase in nuclear tensions and reduced opportunities for arms control. As systems like Archnik and Dark Eagle are deployed and New START's end nears, global stability is at risk. The discussion calls for renewed arms control talks to prevent disaster and restore Cold War-era mutual restraint.

COL. DOUGLAS MACGREGOR, PHD: UKRAINE WAR IS OVER AND NATO EXHAUSTED ITSELF

Douglas MacGregor, PhD, explains how the Ukrainian army and society have exhausted themselves, and why NATO has also reached its limits.

Watch the Video Here (43 minutes, 16 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
13 August 2025

Analysis of the Ukraine Conflict and Geopolitical Implications

The discussion features Colonel Douglas MacGregor, a former advisor to the US Secretary of Defense and a decorated combat veteran, who offers insights into the Ukraine conflict and broader geopolitical issues.

Current Military Situation in Ukraine

Colonel MacGregor suggests Ukraine has fundamentally lost the war, seeing it as a proxy conflict orchestrated by Washington against Russia. He notes Russian forces advancing in multiple regions, while Ukrainian resistance has weakened significantly due to heavy casualties. The remaining Ukrainian troops are mostly older men and boys, and many defensive positions are unmanned. Therefore, MacGregor concludes that the military phase is essentially over, with Russia adjusting its objectives in light of its recent gains.

Recent Russian Advances

The Russian military has advanced quickly, particularly north of Pokrovsk, surrounding and taking entire cities. MacGregor claims this shows Ukrainian resistance is waning because they do not have enough reserves to halt the Russian advance. He also mentions that some elite Ukrainian units are being kept in reserve to protect Kyiv's regime, rather than engaging in active combat on the front lines.

Western Response and Strategic Miscalculations

MacGregor argues that Western governments, lacking a clear strategy, viewed Russia as an obstacle to their globalist objectives. He notes that efforts to destabilize Russia began in the 1990s when financial interests sought to exploit its resources. After President Putin took office, he countered these pressures, reaffirming Russia’s sovereignty and stability.

Economic and Political Consequences

The discussion turns to the vulnerable state of Western economies, particularly the United States, which is burdened with unpayable national debt and a declining capacity to meet its long-term commitments. MacGregor points out that global efforts, such as the BRICS initiative, are aimed at moving away from a dollar-centric financial system.

US and Russian Political Leadership

President Putin is portrayed as patient and dedicated to defending Russia’s interests, rather than seeking territorial expansion beyond Russia's borders. He appears to be biding his time, hoping that Western political systems will weaken under the pressure of economic and social challenges, as MacGregor notes. The anticipated meeting between Presidents Trump and Putin is seen as largely symbolic, with limited expectations for significant progress or lasting agreements.

Geopolitical Shifts and Globalism

MacGregor criticizes globalism, arguing it undermines national identity and unity. He draws parallels to the decline of Austria-Hungary and warns that similar internal divisions threaten the West. Moreover, he comments on the scarcity of talented Western political leaders, attributing this to ideological conformity and the suppression of dissenting opinions.

Conclusion

The conversation concludes with reflections on the limitations of current leadership and the dangers of ideological thinking that oversimplifies complex international relations. MacGregor advocates recognizing true national interests and warns that sticking to ineffective strategies and globalist ideals could lead to increased instability.

FROM PARIS, FRANCE – PEPE ESCOBAR: A PRE-ALASKA ANALYSIS

Judge Andrew Npalitaniano welcomes Pepe Escobar, who provides an analysis and preview of the upcoming Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska.

Watch the Video Here (25 minutes, 50 seconds)

Host: Judge Andrew Napolitano

Judging Freedom
13 August 2025

Preview of the Alaska Meeting

Escobar’s analysis indicates the Alaska meeting is likely more of a spectacle—mainly a photo op for President Trump—than a session with meaningful results. Concerns exist about Trump's understanding of issues such as the 2014 Maidan uprising, the Ukraine conflict, and related historical context.

The Nature of the Meeting

Escobar predicts the summit will be more of a “shadow play,” mainly boosting Trump’s image rather than making real progress. Some speculate that it might only set the stage for a future Moscow meeting, rather than produce substantial agreements.

Complexities and Incentives

Russia is unlikely to halt its military actions in Ukraine due to the momentum. Escobar cites Yuri Ushakov, who says Russia will only consider US proposals with clear terms. The talks could expand to broader US-Russia relations, including spheres of influence, NATO, and security issues previously highlighted in Russian messages to the White House and NATO.

Potential Outcomes and Stakeholders

Escobar discusses pressures faced by leaders. President Putin faces criticism for prolonging the conflict and promoting BRICS interests, mainly on tariffs and sanctions against nations buying Russian oil. If Trump avoids more tariffs, it would be a win for BRICS and Putin.

Trump’s Position

Trump faces opposition from domestic and European sources, including Ukraine. He shifts the burden of the conflict to European NATO members, urging them to take on greater financial responsibilities, while the US benefits from weapons sales and energy deals.

Russian Conditions

Escobar highlights that Russia views the cessation of US intelligence and arms support to Kiev as a crucial red line. If this support does not end, Russia intends to persist with its campaign, striving for a battlefield victory by early 2026. The possibility of meaningful negotiations hinges on the US's readiness to make firm commitments on this issue.

Broader Agenda and Historical Context

The Russian public is calling for a return to the pre-sanctions era in terms of geopolitical, economic, and cultural relations. At the Alaska summit, Putin plans to address the conflict's roots, Ukrainian territorial disputes, demilitarization, and measures to stop NATO’s expansion into Ukraine.

Challenges with European Allies

Escobar warns that European countries might struggle to fund additional military aid due to budget constraints and public opposition. Many now link increased spending on Ukraine to reduced social services.

BRICS' Response

BRICS nations are developing strategies to tackle tariffs and hybrid economic challenges by promoting trade in national currencies and establishing new payment systems, with integration expected between 2025 and 2027.

The Role of the Arctic

Trump focuses on Arctic economic prospects, such as oil and gas, while Russia views Arctic development as a security issue. Russia’s nuclear icebreakers support the Arctic Silk Road and the Northern Sea Route, providing a strategic advantage in trade. It's unlikely Russia will allow significant American involvement.

Impact on Military Action in Ukraine

Escobar states the Alaska summit won't immediately affect Ukraine's military operations. Russian forces will likely continue their advances unless the US offers a credible temporary humanitarian pause, which Lavrov probably doubts, given past experiences.

Conclusion

Judge Npalitaniano ends by thanking Escobar and inviting more discussions in future programs. The Alaska meeting is portrayed as a spectacle but lacks substance, similar to past high-stakes diplomatic events.

PROF. JEFFREY SACHS: TRUMP-PUTIN MEETING - PEACE OR DECEPTION?

Analysis of Recent Diplomatic Developments and the Ukraine Conflict. Professor Jeffrey Sachs discusses Trump and Putin's surprise meeting. Is it political theatrics, a bid to reshape US-Russia relations, or deception? If Trump's stance shifts from "unconditional ceasefire" to ending NATO expansion, optimism is possible. Yet, Trump is also known for deceit and weakness against hawkish elites.

Watch the Video Here (31 minutes, 07 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
11 August 2025

Initial Reactions and Observations

The surprise meeting in Alaska was unexpected, given its timing and remoteness. Trump's inconsistent messages have confused; he previously blamed NATO expansion for the war but now positions himself as a mediator in the Ukraine-Russia conflict, even threatening Russia with an unconditional ceasefire that disregards Ukraine’s neutrality.

Current State of U.S. Policy and Diplomacy

American foreign policy feels incoherent, attributed to Trump’s tactics or impulsive decision-making. Many choices seem instinctive, lacking solid knowledge, and creating a risky environment. Diplomatic channels remained inactive until an unexpected trip to Moscow and the Alaska meeting, with the location only revealed days in advance.

Contradictions and Lack of Transparency

Media and social platforms are flooded with conflicting claims and rumors about concessions and agreements. European leaders and President Zelensky continue to make demands, but the process is disorganized, unprofessional, and fraught with risk. While there is hope for positive results, the process remains unsatisfactory, especially amid nuclear tensions.

Attitudes in the U.S. and Europe

A standard narrative in U.S. and European politics is that the U.S. must win and Russia must lose, but these terms are rarely clearly defined. The goal should be peace and stability, not victory or defeat. Washington can mobilize its military resources, but faces criticism for an inconsistent and non-transparent foreign policy. While both American and Ukrainian publics favor ending the war, leaders seem out of touch with this support and do not act accordingly.

Obstacles to Peace

Several factors sustain the ongoing war, including vested interests in the military-industrial complex and a resistant political system. Influential figures, such as CIA officials and military personnel, drive current policies. Efforts to halt NATO expansion and promote security talks face accusations of appeasement or weakness, complicating the situation.

Failures in Diplomacy

The conflict's roots involve NATO expansion, US interference in Ukraine, and failed diplomacy like Minsk II. Trump aimed to resolve it but faced criticism for citing NATO as a provocation. European leaders are hesitant to address these causes.

European Response and Internal Dynamics

Europe is seen as boxed in by avoiding talks with Russia and damaging ties with China. The U.S. overly influences leaders, lacking strategic independence and a clear security plan. The alliance system stabilizes yet limits Europe, especially as the U.S. shifts focus to Asia.

Long-Term Strategic Context

The aim of weakening or dividing Russia, as described in works such as Brzezinski’s “The Grand Chessboard,” has long been a key Western policy goal. Examples include NATO expansion, the bombing of Serbia, and support for the Maidan movement, viewed as part of this strategy.

Possibility for Optimism

Despite the bleak outlook, hope remains that the upcoming meeting could be a turning point if the U.S. recognizes the conflict's origins and commits to stopping provocations and normalizing relations with Russia. Ending the Ukraine proxy war would benefit the U.S., Russia, Ukraine, and Europe.

Conclusion

The situation remains uncertain with obstacles preventing resolution. Peace requires honest dialogue, acknowledging root causes, and addressing the security concerns of all parties.

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

CHAS FREEMAN: AMERICA'S GLOBAL ROLE AFTER THE UKRAINE PROXY WAR

Ambassador Chas Freeman examines the evolving role of the United States in the aftermath of the Ukraine proxy war.

Freeman, a retired diplomat, served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs (1993-94), earning top public service awards for creating a NATO-focused security framework for Europe and reestablishing U.S.-China military ties. His career includes being U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield and Storm, and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs during Namibia’s independence and Cuban troop withdrawals from Angola.

Watch the Video Here (46 minutes, 27 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
14 August 2025

Professor Glenn Diesen hosts a conversation introducing Ambassador Freeman’s diplomatic experience. It then discusses the abrupt Alaska meeting, raising questions about U.S. foreign policy amid a shifting, multipolar world.

Shift in U.S. Diplomacy

Freeman highlights a shift from the Biden administration’s avoidance of dialogue with Russia to the Trump administration’s willingness to engage. However, he notes these efforts often lack professional expertise and are conducted in unorthodox, amateurish ways.

Implications of the Alaska Meeting

President Trump’s willingness to meet with President Putin is seen as progress, but Freeman warns skepticism is warranted due to Trump’s unpredictability. Both Washington and some European capitals recognize Ukraine has been effectively partitioned, and attention now turns to legally recognizing territorial changes and their impact on peace.

The Nature of Negotiations

Uncertainty exists about the true goals of negotiations—whether genuine settlement, broader talks, or mere appearances. Freeman points out a lack of strategy, suggesting negotiations may be superficial. A real peace process is possible but depends on these high-level talks' outcomes.

Russia’s Position and Ukraine’s Reality

Putin prioritizes protecting Russian-speaking Ukrainians and maintaining Ukraine’s neutrality. Russia seeks recognition of the territorial changes it gained by force and a reorganization of European security. Freeman notes these complex issues require collective solutions for lasting agreements.

Challenges for Ukraine’s Leadership

President Zelensky’s situation is precarious. Elected based on his commitment to peace and minority rights, he's constrained by nationalist pressures within Ukraine and external actors. Freeman says Zelensky risks downfall whether he accepts territorial concessions—facing hardliner backlash—or refuses, risking isolation as U.S. support declines.

European Attitudes and Obstacles

Freeman notes Europe lacks strategic discussion about its and Ukraine's future. He highlights ultranationalist groups' influence in Ukraine and European leaders' reluctance to address this, which hampers peace and integration with the West.

American Foreign Policy Realignment

Freeman talks about different U.S. strategy visions. One advocates for Europe to handle Russia while the U.S. concentrates on China. He believes President Trump does not follow this approach, instead making unpredictable, personality-driven decisions without a clear strategy.

The Global Consequences of U.S. Actions

Freeman criticizes the U.S.’s inward focus, saying it has reduced its global influence. He calls recent diplomatic efforts "delusional,” driven more by personal ambition than strategy.

U.S. Relations with India and Brazil

The discussion shifts to America’s approach to countries like India and Brazil. Freeman calls U.S. policy inconsistent and shallow, causing strained ties and missed partnership opportunities.

Conclusion: The Path Forward

Freeman states the U.S. lacks a coherent grand strategy both in Europe and globally. Negotiations and policy changes are driven more by individual ambitions than long-term goals. He warns that damage to U.S. credibility may be hard to reverse, emphasizing that negotiations involve both transactions and relationships.

JOHN MEARSHEIMER: LIBERAL DELUSIONS AND HOW NATO LED UKRAINE DOWN THE PRIMROSE PATH

Liberal Hegemony and Global Dynamics – How NATO Has Misguided Ukraine.

Watch the Video Here (56 minutes, 42 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
01 August 2025

Prof. John J. Mearsheimer has been the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago since 1982.

He discusses his book, "The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities," in which he analyzes NATO's influence on Ukraine and the post-Cold War order, and critiques liberal illusions in U.S. foreign policy.

The Emergence of Liberal Hegemony

Following the end of the Cold War in 1989 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the U.S. became the world's sole superpower. This allowed it to pursue a foreign policy driven by ideological goals without countering the efforts of other powers. In the early 1990s, this led to liberal hegemony, promoting democracy and institutions globally.

Initial Optimism and Subsequent Collapse

In the 1990s, evidence suggested that liberal hegemony was viable, with foreign policy conducted with finesse despite flaws. By the early 2000s, this strategy began to break down, leading to crises and the collapse of liberal hegemony from 2000 to 2018.

Major Cases of Liberal Foreign Policy

Three major cases illustrate the evolution of U.S. liberal foreign policy: the Bush Doctrine in the Middle East, interaction with China, and NATO's expansion across Europe.

NATO Expansion and Russian Opposition

In 1994, the Clinton administration expanded NATO, marking a significant change in European security. Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic joined in 1999, with further enlargement in 2004. While Russia was not invited, NATO aimed to promote peace and democracy, not containment. Russian leaders, such as Yeltsin and Putin, opposed eastward expansion, viewing it as a threat. Tensions rose with discussions of Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO in 2008, leading to the 2014 Crimea annexation and conflict in Donbass. After 2014, NATO's growth became linked to efforts to contain Russia.

The Clash of Liberalism and Realism

A divide appeared between U.S. liberals and Russian realists. Americans saw themselves as defenders of democracy, while Russians viewed NATO expansion as a security threat. Realists like Kennan and Perry warned of the risks associated with NATO's growth. This ideological clash helped trigger the Ukraine crisis and the 2022 war.

Challenges of Morality and Sovereignty

From a liberal view, Ukraine's choice of alliances was crucial. However, realism suggests that states prioritize security, and Russia viewed Ukraine's potential membership in NATO as an existential threat. The West's focus on Ukraine's sovereignty and NATO's open-door policy conflicted with Russian security concerns, leading to Ukraine's destruction.

Resolving the Ukraine War: A Realist Perspective

From an American realist view, the goal is to quickly resolve the Ukraine conflict, enabling a shift to Asia and better relations with Russia. Russia's main demands are Ukrainian neutrality, disarmament, and recognition of Crimea and eastern regions. While concessions might benefit Ukraine and the US, Ukrainians and Europeans are unlikely to accept these terms, suggesting that the war will likely continue through military action.

Advice to European Leaders

In Europe, the recommended approach is to end the conflict in Ukraine, negotiate the best possible terms for Ukraine, and strengthen diplomatic relations with Russia and China to promote economic growth. While maintaining good relations with the United States remains advantageous, European leaders should also be prepared for a possible decline in American involvement in Europe and prioritize reviving their economies.

Obstacles to Common Sense Solutions

European leaders' reluctance to adopt tough solutions may be due to liberal illusions and their goal to involve the U.S. in Europe. Additionally, global changes and demographic shifts complicate matters.

Why Liberal Hegemony Was Doomed

The liberal hegemony collapsed due to conflicts with nationalism and realism, as efforts to promote democracy faced resistance from nation-states that protected their sovereignty and security. The approach with China highlights this, as China opposed reforms to safeguard its political system and security.

Nationalism Within Liberal Democracies

Even in Western countries, nationalism coexists with liberalism, influencing foreign policy and internal affairs. Leaders like Madeleine Albright expressed liberal nationalist views, emphasizing the importance of national identity and pride.

Limits of Power and the Realist Critique

Realists recognize military limits and advocate for restraint, warning that overreach can lead to counterbalancing and conflict. The pursuit of liberal hegemony has resulted in "forever wars" and adverse outcomes, including Ukraine's fragmentation. In contrast, realist strategies could have preserved stability and avoided disaster.

Conclusion

The interview highlights the consequences of ignoring realist principles, stressing the importance of understanding nationalism and power in international relations. Professor Mearsheimer's views emphasize the need for pragmatic, realistic foreign policy in a changing global landscape.

THE GRAND CHESSBOARD: AMERICAN PRIMACY AND ITS GEOSTRATEGIC IMPERATIVES (1998)

Book Overview

The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1998) by Zbigniew Brzezinski has a 4.6/5-star rating from 370 ratings and a 4.0 rating on Goodreads from 3,291 reviews. Multiple formats available.

America as the Sole Superpower

As the twentieth century draws to a close, the US remains the world’s leading superpower, with unmatched economic, military, and global influence. This raises an important question: how should America stay at the top? Brzezinski explores this challenge and shares a daring vision for maintaining leadership into the twenty-first century.

The Eurasian Landmass: The Grand Chessboard

Brzezinski’s theory emphasizes understanding power dynamics in Eurasia, which encompasses most of the world’s population, resources, and economy, spanning from Portugal to Malaysia and from Lapland to the Bering Strait. It’s a 'chessboard” where America’s leadership is tested. He argues the U.S. must manage conflicts and relations across Europe, Asia, and the Middle East to prevent rivals from threatening American interests. Eurasia’s strategic importance is central to global affairs.

Critical Regions and Geostrategic Stakes

The Grand Chessboard examines Europe, Russia, Central Asia, and East Asia, highlighting America's interests in each of these regions. Brzezinski notes that the Soviet Union's collapse has reshaped rivalries and alliances, demanding strategic reassessment.

• France and Germany will play pivotal roles in future geostrategic developments, whereas Britain and Japan will likely not have the same level of influence.
• NATO expansion presents Russia with an opportunity to correct past mistakes, an opportunity Russia cannot afford to reject.
• The fates of Ukraine and Azerbaijan are of paramount importance to American interests.
• Viewing China primarily as a threat could become a self-fulfilling prophecy, exacerbating tensions.
• America is described not only as the first truly global superpower but also potentially the last, raising essential questions about the nation’s legacy.

Conclusion

Brzezinski’s analysis challenges conventional thinking and provides a framework for maintaining U.S. global dominance.

A WAR OF NARRATIVES | PUTIN'S REGIME PANICS AS FSB PURGE BEGINS

Putin's regime panics as the FSB stages a brutal purge in Russia amid mounting battlefield losses and economic collapse, threatening Putin's control.

Cornered with dwindling resources, the regime considers secret talks with Trump in Alaska, but Putin's fear of flying exposes chaos within his inner circle.

This analysis reviews verified reports on the FSB's actions and the war's future.

Watch the Video Here (18 minutes, 05 seconds)

Kyiv Post
Host: Jason Jay Smart
12 August 2025

Editor’s Note | 25-50 words

The conversation offers a bleak outlook for Vladimir Putin's leadership future, highlighting unlikely significant improvements shortly. Both speakers discuss the ongoing challenges and lack of positive change in the Russian administration.

Analysis of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine: Military and Political Observations

Music starts as Chuck greets Jason, discussing his past as a Navy SEAL Team 6 squadron leader and his views on the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Current State of Russian Military Operations

Chuck states Russia aims to increase its military presence, with social media showing deployments mainly in the east and south. Reports mention contacts near Horhe in Zafarista Oblast and ongoing attacks in Kian Cena Chivar and Picrosk. Russia pushes forward but suffers unsustainable losses of about 1,000 casualties daily, or 360,000 annually. Chuck stresses no country can win a war with such casualties.

Recruitment and Morale Issues

In Russia, recruitment ads target those in financial need, offering cash and loans in exchange for military service. The experience is seen as a one-way mission. Field videos reveal poor decisions, such as parking armed vehicles openly to avoid drones. Statistics show that 38 out of 100 Russian vehicles in battle are abandoned, often uncamouflaged and destroyed by Ukrainian forces. Higher levels also abandon vehicles, such as the plain-sight destruction of a missile complex. Widespread reluctance to fight is evident in mutiny videos, where soldiers complain about a lack of supplies and the absence of rotation since 2023. Chuck states that such dissent is a capital offense.

Ukrainian Strategy and Its Impact on Russia

Jason notes Ukraine’s new strategy avoids conventional warfare, instead targeting Russian territory with strikes on drone factories and chemical plants, causing chaos and revealing deteriorating Russian conditions, especially as Ukraine strikes deep inside Russia, like an oil refinery 1,500 km from the front. Chuck highlights Ukraine's strategic drone campaign, setting maritime and aerial precedents. Its Black Sea successes, sinking Russian ships and submarines, have hampered Russia’s amphibious capabilities, all without major surface ships.

Economic and Logistical Consequences for Russia

Ukrainian attacks have significant economic effects. The strike on the Rison oil refinery halved production and pushed diesel prices above U.S. levels. Since 70% of Russia’s military transport depends on diesel trains, these attacks disrupt logistics, directly impairing Russia’s war effort.

Russian Offensive and Losses

The Russian summer offensive caused 230,000 casualties and gained only a quarter of a percent of Ukraine’s territory. Ukraine’s defenses hinder Russian advances, which come at high costs. Chuck says the war is failing for Putin, as his peace efforts are fake, shown by ongoing attacks on Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure.

Internal Instability in Russia

Within Russia, signs of instability are rising, with recent arrests of governors from Kursk and Belgrad, a transport minister's suicide and dismissal, and control over transport and ports transferred to the FSB. Jason notes the FSB is consolidating power and new revenue sources, comparing the Kremlin to a mafia led by Putin. Over 100 officials have been arrested recently, reflecting intense repression and turmoil.

Implications for Upcoming Peace Talks

The upcoming peace talks in Alaska are being discussed, with skepticism about Putin’s willingness to attend and speculation that he may send a body double, based on reports from defectors and an analysis of his public appearances. Putin’s risk aversion is highlighted, including his preference for train travel and secure locations, as well as his reluctance to expose himself to danger in either hostile or friendly countries.

Barriers to Negotiation and Conclusion

Concerns arise over President Zullinsky's exclusion from negotiations and Russia’s unrealistic demands, which Ukraine finds unacceptable. Chuck doubts the Alaska summit will yield progress and fears increased political risk for Washington. Internal pressures on Putin, military losses, and dissatisfaction among Russian officials and oligarchs indicate that Russia's war is not going as planned.

Conclusion

Chuck and Jason agree that Ukraine will continue fighting smartly, inflicting heavy costs on Russia for minimal gains. The Putin regime's outlook seems bleak, with little hope for improvement.

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 in search of 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