Our Friday News Analysis | What the World Reads Now!

EDITORIAL | Are World Leaders Dumb, Stupid, Sociopaths, or Psychopaths, or All of the Above (Part 17)?

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
Click here for Part 11
Click here for Part 12
Click here for Part 13
Click here for Part 14
Click here for Part 15
Click here for Part 16

By Abraham A. van Kempen
26 September 2025

THINK!

In her column of 24 September 2025, Heather Cox Richardson reports:

               “Hours after delivering his delusional and offensive speech to the United Nations yesterday, President Donald J. Trump did an about-face on his previous support for Russia in its war against Ukraine.

               After meeting with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, his social media account posted:

               ‘I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form,’ which would be before Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea. Trump noted the profound toll the war is taking on Russia’s economy and speculated that Ukraine might even be able to take Russian land.

               ‘In any event,’ Trump posted, ‘I wish both Countries well. We will continue to supply NATO with weapons [as long as they pay for them], allowing them to use them as they see fit. Good luck to all!”

CNN’s Nick Paton Walsh noted that this statement doesn’t actually change much on the ground in the war. What it does, though, is suggest that Trump has lost interest in the conflict and is attempting to wash his hands of it.”

What’s President Trump saying and to whom?

Nothing! Nothing of any consequence. However, the Neocolonialists, also known as Neocons, in the Collective West are reveling in what they believe they heard. Here is the master of smoke and mirrors, who knows how to appease those whom he dislikes most with what they want to hear. Mr. Trump knows how to spin his friends and foes into his centrifuge of ambiguities. It’s his way of surviving and winning.

I agree with Mr. Trump. Let me paraphrase his thoughts:

• “Europe, you have the power to end the war now. Declare NATO membership for Ukraine and Russia, and invite Russia—Europe's largest and most influential country—to sit at the European table with equal footing.”
• Ukraine, do you want to reclaim your land? Russia prefers you as a friend, not as their Vietnam. In 1991, Russia granted Ukraine unconditional independence. Russia can do so again. Ukraine, it’s up to you. You started the fight by butchering thousands of Ukrainians of Russian descent.
• Reassure Russia that your Ukrainian radical nationalists will cease harming Russian-Ukrainians, many of whom have resided in Ukraine for centuries.
• Stop beating a dead horse! Stop repeating the same futile efforts. The European Union is not your ally, nor has it ever been. They are using you and your people, until the last Ukrainian, to weaken, divide, disillusion, and diminish Russia to the detriment of Ukraine. Honestly, Mr. Zelensky, it smells like you’re on their payroll.
• If you aim to reclaim your land, you should allow Ukraine's people, including the 12 million Ukrainians of Russian descent, to decide through a fair and democratic election. How will the 67 percent of Ukrainians who favor a negotiated settlement cast their votes? Will they keep you in power or vote you out? Will they keep your government in power or vote them out?

The MiGs Joyriding Above Estonia

Of course, NATO has a duty to intercept enemy targets. I agree with President Trump. Shoot them down! Have you noticed? NATO failed! They didn’t.

I don’t have to explain to my seasoned readers why those three MiGs were flying and joyriding for 12 minutes above Estonian airspace. For those of you who are new to reading my weekly letters, let me fill you in on the theatrics of war. Have you heard or read about the 16 inert, disarmed drones made of Styrofoam that wandered into Poland? Some of them were held together with duct tape.

According to my trusted sources, this was a false flag operation carried out by Zelensky’s government with NATO Intel fingerprints all over it. NATO did manage to shoot down two of the 16 drones. Good show, but not good enough. Think! Who would have gained more from this false flag? Ukraine and NATO or Russia? Besides, the drones encountered and unearthed in Poland were not even within range to be electronically monitored and remotely piloted in Russia.

It's tit for tat – retaliation or revenge where one action is met with a similar action in return, essentially a ‘blow for blow’ or ‘an eye for an eye.’ The three Russian MiGs mocked the Estonian armed forces with tit for tat. Subtly, amidst the clouds, Russia conveyed: "This is how we enter NATO airspace, not with impotent drones salvaged by Ukraine.” And what did NATO do? Nothing! What could NATO have done? NOTHING! What was Russia’s message?

               “We’re ready!”

               “If we intended to instill fear, we would have sent just one stealth bomber," leaving NATO leadership caught with its pants down, with its tail between its legs.”

Certainly, in contrast to a Russian stealth bomber, the MiGs are openly visible to all. Russia’s primary message appears to be “You’ve lost the war. It’s time to negotiate a peace agreement.”

The EU leadership has yet to come to terms. None has met with President Putin. They’re kissing up to what they believe is President Trump’s ego. Mr. Trump’s response: “Get lost.”

It's Europe’s War

President Trump tells Europe, “It’s your war, not mine. I’m done with it, and I’m finished with you.” He even appeases the EU leadership with the offer to sell Europe the most sophisticated weaponry, as long as the US can deliver, and if Europe has the cold, hard cash on hand. What a deal!

The Russian Federation is NOT about to become a former Yugoslavia.

President Trump urges Russia to “Stop the bloodshed," emphasizing that over 1.7 million Ukrainian men have sacrificed their lives as cannon fodder in a flawed EU strategy. This insane plan seeks to attack, invade, and divide Russia—either into three separate nations or, according to some, into 17 smaller states like NATO's division of Yugoslavia into eight countries in the late 1990s. The Russian Federation is NOT about to become the former Yugoslavia.

               “Mr. Zelensky, the EU-US/NATO Axis has sunk over $300 billion in military aid and special payments (alleged bribes) into your economy. Your country, regarded as the most corrupt in Europe, has never generated more than $100 billion in annual GDP. (Think how your country could have invested $300 billion in new industries and needed infrastructure.)

               “Mr. Zelensky, the EU-US/NATO Axis does not care about you, your people, or your country.”

               “Mr. Zelensky, the EU-US/NATO Axis only wants to suck you dry, AND YOU KNOW THAT.”

The US Notably Abstained

Have you noticed what did not notably happen? A statement condemning Russia was supported mainly by the EU (except Hungary) and ten other countries, out of the 193 UN members. THE US NOTABLY ABSTAINED.

As I wrote in last week’s editorial, multipolarity is a key part of the world today. Whether we like it, want it, or not, this shift is a natural part of the world’s ongoing changes. The fast-paced nature of international relations means that multiple centers of power are rising and shaping the global landscape.

Are we currently at a pivotal juncture in history where our continued existence hinges on fostering peaceful coexistence and forming strategic alliances, rather than engaging in conflicts? The essential inquiry pertains to whether the United States, Russia, China, India, Iran, and all other nations can discern shared interests and cooperate effectively. I remain committed to petitioning the global community and collecting one billion signatures to nominate President Trump, President Putin, Chairman Xi Jinping, and Prime Minister Modi for the Nobel Peace Prize.

On a personal note … I’m still struggling with my eyes. I don’t want you to worry about them. You’ll know more next week.

Enjoy your weekend.

Abraham A. van Kempen
Senior Editor

Building the Bridge Foundation, The Hague
A Way to Get to Know Each Other and the Other

ONLY 36 COUNTRIES BACK UKRAINE IN KEY UN VOTE – THE US ABSTAINED

A statement condemning Russia was supported mainly by the EU and ten other countries, out of the 193 UN members. THE US ABSTAINED.

Vladimir Zelensky speaks during the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly, September 24, 2025, at UN headquarters. © AP Photo / Yuki Iwamura

A joint statement by Ukraine and the EU condemning Russia has received the backing of only 36 out of the 193 UN member states.

The US notably abstained.

Presented by EU Foreign Affairs Chief Kaja Kallas and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba at the UN Headquarters in New York on Tuesday, the document describes Russia’s actions vis-à-vis Ukraine as a “blatant violation of the UN Charter.”

It also calls on the global community to “maximize pressure” on Moscow, and to support Ukraine’s “territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders.”

Please continue reading …

GENERAL HAROLD KUYAT IN CONVERSATION: INSIGHTS ON THE WEST, RUSSIA, AND THE UKRAINE CONFLICT

General Harald Kujat is a former head of the German Armed Forces (Bundeswehr) and the former Chairman of NATO's Military Committee.

Having held the top military position in both Germany and NATO, General Kujat offers his expertise on how the West and Russia ended up fighting a proxy war in Ukraine. General Kujat discusses the failure to reach a common understanding after the Cold War, the toppling of President Yanukovych in Ukraine, the sabotage of the Minsk agreement and the Istanbul peace negotiations, and the West's lies about an "unprovoked" and "full-scale invasion" of Ukraine.

When Boris Johnson came to Ukraine to sabotage the peace negotiations in 2022, one of Zelensky's close associates summed up the essence of Johnson's visit: "Johnson brought two simple messages to Kyiv. The first is that Putin is a war criminal; he should be pressured, not negotiated with. And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not. We can sign an agreement with you, Ukraine, but not with him. Anyway, he will screw everyone over".

Watch the Video Here (44 minutes, 23 seconds) 

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
19 September 2025

Harald Kujat: Former Head of the German Army Exposes Lies of the Ukraine War

Today, we're honored to have retired four-star General Harold Kuyat join us. As the former head of the German armed forces, the Bundeswehr, and past chairman of NATO's military committee—the highest-ranking military position in NATO—General Kuyat brings a wealth of experience to our conversation. His background also includes chairing the NATO-Ukraine Commission of Chiefs of Defense, giving him a distinct perspective on both sides of the current conflict. We're grateful for his insights and welcome him to our program.

The Evolution of NATO-Russia Relations

Following the Cold War, NATO-Russia relations improved through dialogue, exchanges, and the establishment of a strategic partnership. In 1990, efforts toward closer ties began, culminating in NATO's 1991 strategic concept. These developments continued with the NATO-Russia Founding Act and the establishment of the NATO-Russia Council, which enabled regular political and military meetings, including the appointment of a permanent Russian military representative at NATO.

Two key events altered this relationship: in 2002, the U.S. withdrew from the ABM Treaty, which undermined nuclear stability and was viewed by Russia as an attempt at superiority. In 2008, despite failure, NATO's consideration of inviting Georgia and Ukraine introduced the possibility of Ukrainian membership. These moments eroded strategic trust and heightened Russian fears of NATO expansion.

Russian Strategic Objectives and Buffer Zones

Russia’s primary objectives are to avoid direct conflict with the U.S. and NATO. They sought co-decision on security risks during NATO-Russia negotiations; NATO rejected this, but it led to the establishment of crisis management mechanisms and some joint decisions.

One of Russia's main concerns was setting up a buffer zone, especially in former Warsaw Pact countries like Ukraine, to avoid direct conflict with NATO. After NATO expanded eastward, Ukraine became the center of this strategic buffer, and Russia’s actions in the current war are seen as attempts to reestablish this zone.

Assessing Provocations and Russian Motivations

The West widely accepts the narrative that Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine was 'unprovoked,' shaping policy to view negotiations as rewarding aggression and military victory as the only peace path. General Kuyat counters this, citing a history of tensions like the 2014 coup, eastern Ukraine's civil war, and restrictions on Russian speakers.

The Minsk II agreement of 2015 aimed to resolve the conflict by granting the Donbass regions special status and protecting the Russian language and culture. Ukraine did not implement these provisions; instead, it modernized and expanded its armed forces. According to negotiators like Merkel and Hollande, the goal was to buy time for Ukraine to rearm, which Russia saw as a deception.

In December 2021, Russia sought negotiations with the US and NATO to ease the security crisis, but its efforts were rejected. Russia then massed troops at Ukraine’s borders as leverage. When this failed, Russia invaded, aiming to prompt negotiations or install a pro-Russian government, not complete conquest. The force's size and strategy made total occupation unlikely.

After regime change failed, Russia switched its focus to occupying the areas of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson within their original administrative boundaries, particularly in the context of the self-proclaimed republics in Donbass.

Undermining of Minsk and Missed Opportunities for Peace

The failure to implement the Minsk Agreement, despite its endorsement by the United Nations, constituted a violation of international law. In early 2022, negotiations held in Istanbul nearly resulted in a breakthrough, with both parties demonstrating a willingness to compromise. The agreement focused on Ukraine’s permanent neutrality and security assurances, with remaining issues to be addressed through direct discussions between Presidents Zelensky and Putin. Nevertheless, the West—particularly following British Prime Minister Johnson's visit to Kyiv—discouraged further negotiations, advocating for continued resistance and explicitly aiming to weaken Russia through military means.

Further evidence of this external influence comes from statements by leaders like Israel’s former Prime Minister Bennett, who noted that some Western countries saw a chance to use Ukrainian forces as a proxy against Russia, rather than seeking peace.

The Illusion of Military Victory and Changing Dynamics

General Kuyat points out that Western policy created a false impression that Ukraine could win a military victory, which contradicts strategic reality. Even top U.S. military leaders, like General Mark Milley, acknowledged Ukraine's limitations and urged negotiations. Despite significant Western military support and repeated promises of new, decisive weapons, the political objectives set for Ukraine were unrealistic from the outset.

Throughout the war, several opportunities for diplomacy were missed, including proposals from China and Brazil, as well as initiatives by European leaders. Hungarian Prime Minister Orban was the only European leader to make a notable effort, but faced intense criticism. General Kuyat notes that Germany has taken an ambivalent role, adopting a firm political stance while being less active militarily than France and the United Kingdom.

Negotiation versus Escalation: Risks and Prospects for Peace

General Kuyat differentiates between political and military outcomes. He asserts that no side can “win” the war politically; Russia has already experienced setbacks, including Finland and Sweden's accession to NATO. Russia’s current objective seems to be consolidating the four regions to serve as a buffer zone. Uncertainty persists regarding whether Russia will pursue the seizure of Odessa and its intention to cut Ukraine off from the Black Sea—further escalation hinges upon the resumption of negotiations.

With the war ongoing, Russia’s geopolitical options are limited, as shown by its reduced influence in the South Caucasus and the limitations imposed by the Middle East conflict. Both sides have taken more rigid negotiating stances, with Ukraine focusing on detailed security guarantees and Russia pushing for thorough preparation and a substantial agenda for talks. The absence of negotiations is prolonging the tragedy and destruction.

Risks of Escalation and Direct Conflict

There is a persistent risk of escalation through Ukrainian actions drawing NATO into the war and European support for deeper strikes inside Russia. Such steps could shift Western involvement from indirect to direct, risking a broader European war. Russia’s primary goal is to keep Ukraine neutral and free of foreign troops. A large buffer zone is seen as essential to prevent accidental escalation.

Recent events, like drone incursions over Poland and missile strikes, highlight the risk of misunderstandings and manipulation leading Europe into direct conflict. To avoid disaster, we need thorough peace talks that take into account the interests of all parties, including Europe.

Europe’s Changing Role and Its Consequences

Traditionally, the United States has been more hawkish on NATO expansion, while European leaders urged caution. However, roles have shifted, and Europe has become more militaristic, often resisting diplomacy. General Kuyat attributes this to the false belief in a Ukrainian victory and Western contributions to the war's prolongation.

The consequences are substantial. If Ukraine loses militarily, Europe will share in the defeat. The conflict has weakened European defense, economy, and influence. General Kuyat emphasizes that a close US alliance and a peaceful resolution are crucial for restoring Europe's security.

Conclusion

As the interview concludes, the conversation shifts to the emergence of a multipolar world order. With Europe’s influence waning, economic burdens mounting, and its limited ability to influence the war's outcome, the pressing need for diplomatic efforts and alliances becomes clear. General Kuyat remains optimistic that reason will ultimately prevail, negotiations will resume, and a new, stable order can be established in Europe—one that brings together both Russia and Ukraine.

We thank General Harold Kuyat for his invaluable insights during these dangerous times.

PROF. GLENN DIESEN: ZELENSKY APPEALS FOR ARMS TO FIGHT RUSSIA AT THE UN

Judge Napolitano’s discussion with Prof. Diesen delineates the consequences following President Trump’s speech at the United Nations, with particular emphasis on his meeting with President Zelensky and his appeal for augmented European military and financial support for Ukraine.

President Trump leaves the impression that he advocated prompt military intervention, urged Europe to finance Ukraine’s initiatives, and underscored the necessity for Europe to assume a leading role in implementing sanctions against Russia.

Moreover, he emphasized the potential economic risks for Europe, especially if secondary sanctions impact global powers, cautioning that such measures could entail significant financial repercussions for European economies.

What was Mr. Trump really saying?

Watch the Video Here (27 minutes, 24 seconds)

Host: Judge Andrew Napolitano
Judging Freedom
24 September 2025

Judging Freedom: International Affairs and Global Dynamics

Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, September 24th, 2025. Professor Glenn Diesen will join us shortly to discuss recent United Nations events, including President Zelensky's plea for more arms and President Trump's support for Ukrainian victory.

Insights from a Presidential Meeting

Before our Q&A with Prof. Diesen, I met Iran's president with Scott Ritter, Professor Sachs, Max Blumenthal, and Media Benjamin. The president recognized American Zionist oligarchs' influence, condemned Israeli policies, and acknowledged US negotiation risks. He stated Iran is prepared for any action from Israel or the US. Although off the record, his remarks, summarized here, contained no private information.

Recent Developments at the United Nations

The main US news is President Trump’s UN speech and meeting with President Zelensky. Zelensky called for more arms, while Trump stated on Truth Social that Ukraine will win and reclaim all Russian-occupied territory, including Crimea. Russians skeptically dismissed this as Trump’s usual outlandish comment, but US neoconservatives supporting Ukraine cheered Trump’s stance.

Analysis of US and European Policy

Senator Lindsey Graham is excited that the US may supply Ukraine with advanced weapons without restrictions. Trump’s inconsistent approach oscillates between punishing Russia and engaging in diplomatic talks. His current rhetoric is belligerent, claiming Ukraine is winning and will regain lost territory, which few believe. Zelensky highlights progress in liberating land, creating an alternative reality.

Despite strong words, Trump often doesn't follow through; he only asks for European funding of Ukraine’s offensive and security guarantees after the conflict ends. These positions can make Europe unsure about the future, especially since Trump suggests Europeans shoot down Russian jets but then offers limited US support if retaliation happens. Sanctions on Russia would mostly impact Europe, risking serious economic problems and increased dependence on the US.

Economic and Political Impacts on Europe

If Europeans consider implementing secondary sanctions on Russia, especially targeting significant nations like China and India, they might find themselves more isolated economically and increasingly dependent on the US. Throughout history, European leaders have cautioned about the risks of relying too heavily on the US and the potential for conflict within Europe. Moving forward with such sanctions could harm their economies and limit their political independence, effectively making them more tied to American interests.

Russian and NATO Reactions

Trump’s description of Russia as a "paper tiger" can seem to suggest weakness, which might encourage NATO to become more bold in their actions, viewing the potential risks as manageable with limited Russian retaliation. Still, it’s important to remember that Ukraine has received significant support from NATO, including weapons, logistics, intelligence, and military planning. Such language can be risky, especially since Russian officials have cautioned that as Ukraine struggles, NATO’s support may increase, crossing previously set red lines. As the war draws to a close and the Ukrainian forces become more exhausted, NATO might take more drastic steps, which could lead Russia to gear up for further escalation—perhaps with advanced missiles or a stronger nuclear deterrent.

Controversy Over Drone Incidents in Poland

The ongoing debate about drones in Poland continues without a clear resolution. Russian representatives deny any involvement, suggesting that Ukraine might have staged a false flag operation to provoke NATO’s response. In the past, Ukraine has tried to attribute missile strikes to Russia, aiming to draw NATO into the conflict. The coverage by European media around these incidents often includes exaggerated claims and a lack of demand for solid evidence or accountability. Even Polish officials have pointed out that the so-called drone attack involved no armed drones, and similar propaganda efforts have been used before to promote anti-Russian feelings.

Intelligence Operations and Media Narratives

Some believe that these incidents follow strategies used by intelligence agencies like MI6 and the CIA, which might coordinate information and stories. Over the years, there have been many claims—such as Russia Gate, the Biden laptop scandal, and accusations of Russian bounties on American soldiers—that have turned out to be false. Despite this, accountability hasn't been achieved. The continuous spread of baseless allegations only fuels war fears and brings us closer to conflict.

International Military Support for Ukraine

President Zelensky continues to passionately seek support from global leaders, highlighting the importance of backing from Europe and the United States. While a few allies, such as South Korea, Japan, and Australia, stand with him, many countries worldwide are hesitant to impose sanctions on Russia. The challenge of mobilizing enough resources for Ukraine’s defense is significant, especially since both manpower and weapons are limited. Many European leaders assume that the US can easily send weapons to Ukraine when needed, but this overlooks some real-world limitations. Ultimately, Trump’s message suggests a division of responsibilities, with Europe expected to take the lead in supporting Ukraine.

Shift to Middle Eastern Affairs

Looking at the Middle East, the current president of Syria has a complex background, being a former Taliban leader who once fought against US forces in Afghanistan and was detained by General David Petraeus. In a recent discussion, Petraeus expressed admiration for the Syrian president’s vision and leadership, even though he has a history of violent actions. This situation highlights the shifting alliances and official connections with former adversaries, raising important questions about supporting individuals with challenging pasts.

Conclusion and Upcoming Discussions

Professor Diesen, thank you so much for stepping into the discussion at the last minute. We're really looking forward to working together more and hope we’ll get a chance to meet face-to-face when you're in New York City. At 3:00 today, Dan McAdams will join us to chat about freedom of speech, the latest with Jimmy Kimmel, and Google’s admission of government pressure to silence critics, including a US senator who has appeared on this show. Stay with us for more updates on Judging Freedom!

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

WION IMPULSE | RUSSIAN MIG-31 FIGHTERS CROSS INTO NATO AIRSPACE OVER ESTONIA.

Recent breaches of Russian airspace, including drone incursions into Poland and Romania, are perceived by numerous European countries as deliberate provocations aimed at testing NATO’s defenses.

• While Russia asserts that these actions are related to Ukraine, experts and officials emphasize the escalating risk of further escalation.
• In response, NATO has strengthened its eastern flank and heightened its operational readiness.
• Persistent tensions, mutual provocations, and stalled peace negotiations suggest that the distinction between proxy and direct conflict is becoming increasingly blurred, thereby raising concerns about potential future confrontations in the region.

Watch the Video Here (6 minutes, 27 seconds)

The Pulse India
WION – The World is One News
19 September 2025

Escalating Tensions Over the Baltic: Russian Airspace Violations and NATO Response

Prof. Glenn Diesen, as interviewed by WION, discussed the three Russian MiG-31 fighters entering Estonian airspace.

“Although there isn't much information to reach definitive conclusions yet, it's crucial to acknowledge that the proxy war in Ukraine is escalating rapidly. I believe NATO and Russia are moving closer to conflict. Recently, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov mentioned that NATO is effectively at war with Russia.”

Recent Airspace Violation Over Estonia

Tensions in the Baltic region have increased after an incident involving Russian military aircraft. Estonia reported that three Russian fighter jets, identified as MiG-31s, briefly entered its airspace without warning for about twelve minutes. These jets flew over the Gulf of Finland, allegedly as a probable signal that Russia might be testing NATO's response and boundaries.

Estonia's foreign ministry summoned Russia's chargé d'affaires to protest after a Russian aircraft near Vainloo Island in the Gulf of Finland flew without a flight plan, had its transponders off, and failed to communicate with Estonian air traffic control, according to the military.

Broader Context of Russian Provocations

This airspace breach is part of a pattern of incidents presumed to be Russian military provocations. Over recent weeks, there have been two incursions, including Russian drones crossing into Polish and Romanian airspace. Russia insists that these actions were not aimed at these countries, saying their operations were solely focused on Ukraine.

Western intelligence agencies are investigating whether these incursions were accidental or deliberate, probing NATO's air defenses and possible responses.

Ukraine, Poland, and several European countries believe these incursions were intentional. In contrast, President Donald Trump suggested it might have been a mistake, but Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk rejected this, affirming the violation was deliberate.

NATO's Response and Reinforcement Measures

Poland believes the drones were deliberately sent into its airspace to test the response capabilities of Poland and NATO. In response, NATO is reinforcing eastern flank defenses through Operation Eastern Sentry, deploying fighter jets from several countries to intercept drones and secure the region.

Expert Perspective: Potential for Escalation

Professor Glenn Diesen, an international relations expert at the University of Southeastern Norway, shared his insights during a live broadcast. He carefully considered the possibility that the violation was not accidental, pointing to the length and scale of the incursion. Professor Diesen also mentioned that the ongoing mutual provocations between Russia and NATO might be nudging both sides closer to direct conflict. He reminded us of the long-standing proxy war in Ukraine and noted that with peace negotiations at a standstill and NATO possibly losing ground, further escalation seems quite likely.

Professor Diesen also shared insights on Russia’s potential testing of NATO’s Article 5 response mechanisms. He mentioned recent threats, like NATO potentially seizing Russian commercial ships in the Baltic Sea, and noted remarks by NATO military leaders about possible operations in Russia’s Kaliningrad region. The support from NATO countries—arming, sharing intelligence, and offering operational help—has, understandably, brought the alliance closer to directly engaging in the conflict.

As the boundary between proxy and direct conflict becomes increasingly blurred, Professor Dies cautioned that both sides may be preparing for a future that feels more uncertain and risky. There’s even a possibility that Russia is hinting it might be ready for confrontation.

DANIEL DAVIS: TRUMP CALLS FOR SHOOTING DOWN RUSSIAN JETS

This discussion between Prof. Glenn Diesen and Lt. Col. Daniel Davis examines the disconnect between Western commitments and actual capabilities in the Ukraine conflict.

It emphasizes the ambiguity of US security assurances and Europe’s reluctance to pursue significant strategic changes. The text outlines the resource constraints in military and industrial sectors affecting both the US and Europe, as well as the dangers of increased rhetoric despite waning Western influence.

The analysis suggests that Western countries need to adjust to a shifting multipolar world, focusing on realism and practical de-escalation to prevent further instability.

Watch the Video Here (34 minutes, 11 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
24 September 2025

Analysis of Recent Statements and Shifting Dynamics in the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Welcome back. Today, Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis joins us for an in-depth discussion. Davis, a decorated military officer and recipient of the Ridenhower Prize for truth-telling, is known for exposing discrepancies between US and NATO statements and the realities on the ground in Afghanistan.

Trump’s Shifting Stance and Public Statements

Recently, former President Trump made notable social media remarks claiming he now fully understands the Russia-Ukraine conflict, despite being months into his presidency. He suggests Ukraine could reclaim all its territory and possibly take Russian land. Trump called Russia a "paper tiger" and urged Ukraine to act, showing confidence in its prospects.

In May 2023, as a candidate, Trump claimed he could resolve the Russia-Ukraine war within 24 hours, citing his understanding of the key players. However, subsequent events show little evidence that he comprehends the complexities involved.

Policy Actions and Gaps

Trump’s recent remarks lack concrete policy measures. Specifically, he did not propose new sanctions on Russia or impose additional tariffs on countries that purchase Russian oil. His aid proposals were minimal—only two $500 million packages and a potential $1 billion monthly over ten months—significantly less than previous support. Consequently, these actions do not change the strategic situation or equip Ukraine to meet the ambitious goals Trump has set.

European and Ukrainian Reactions

Ukrainian President Zelensky acknowledged the announcement with restraint, citing ongoing difficulties and the need for more support. Trump's words are largely symbolic due to a lack of specific commitments, leaving European leaders and policymakers without a clear basis to adjust policies or expectations.

Security Guarantees and Strategic Ambiguities

Trump also did not clarify security guarantees, delaying the matter until after the conflict ends. This uncertainty erodes trust and makes allies unsure of US commitments. Without clear support, European countries must interpret and respond to changing statements cautiously, often without significant shifts in their strategies.

Rhetoric versus Capabilities

The discussion highlights the distinction between spoken promises and actual capabilities. While there are promises of severe sanctions or unlimited military aid, these are limited by practical concerns—Europe risks severe economic damage, and the US has only limited resources for more weapons and ammo. The idea that Ukraine should launch offensives is presented without the necessary support, highlighting the disconnect between what is said and what can be practically done.

Military and Industrial Realities

Fundamental challenges in manpower and industrial capacity persist, with Russia maintaining an advantage that hinders Ukraine's efforts to counter its adversary. Despite high-profile weapons deliveries, no significant changes have occurred, and Western stockpiles are depleted. Commitments elsewhere, such as in Israel, strain resources, highlighting the limits to escalation.

European Rhetoric and Escalation Risks

European governments have recently increased rhetoric, often over unverified incidents attributed to Russia. This eagerness to escalate, despite limited means, reflects a belief in Western dominance that persisted from the post-Cold War era. However, the strategic landscape has shifted, with Russia and China strengthening while Western capabilities decline.

Conclusion: Navigating a Changing World Order

The prevailing view holds that Western countries—especially those in Europe—are struggling to adapt to a multipolar global order. The security alliances and beliefs of the 1990s are no longer valid, and allegiance to the US seems motivated more by fear of being abandoned than by strategic interests. As the conflict approaches its final stages and options decrease, the focus shifts to realism and self-interest. The hope is that leaders will favor de-escalation and practical solutions over rhetoric and risky miscalculations, recognizing the potential impact on global stability.

Thank you for participating in this critical and timely discussion. Let's hope these difficult times do not turn into a catastrophe.

GUEST EDITORIAL | IT’S NOT ENOUGH TO RECOGNIZE ISRAEL’S GENOCIDE IN GAZA

If nothing is done, we all deserve to live in a world where genocide is the norm.

FILE PHOTO. A woman holding a girl reacts after Israeli airstrikes hit the Ridwan neighborhood of Gaza City, Gaza. © Ali Jadallah/Anadolu via 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
19 September 2025

Those with eyes to see and ears to hear—which includes this author—have known it for a long time.

However, the recent report by the United Nations’ Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel—now published and detailed—remains highly significant:

Israel has committed genocide against the Palestinians.

To any impartial reader—regardless of politics—the report, after two years of fact-finding and legal review, shows Israel’s Gaza conduct meets four of five genocide criteria in the 1948 UN Convention and 1998 Rome Statute, including:

1. Killing members of the group.
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.

Under international law, even one of these actions is sufficient to be charged with genocide.

The UN Commission report, of course, converges with what the Associated Press (AP) has called a “rising chorus” of belated yet direly needed acknowledgements of the single greatest crime yet committed in our century, including from:

1. The International Association of Genocide Scholars (the “world’s leading” such association, according to the BBC),
2. The Israeli NGO’s B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights (Israel)
3. Even US Senator Bernie Sanders, who used to fight tooth and nail to deny this genocide for as long as he could, has now unforgivably changed his stance.

Read more
Israel guilty of genocide in Gaza – UN commission.

• More generally, by now, 43 percent even of Americans see that Israel is committing genocide, and are ready to say so when asked by pollsters.
• Fifty-three percent of Americans don’t like Israel.
• Both figures are nothing short of sensational in the US context, especially if you consider that it is the young who have had enough of Zionism.
• Moreover, traditionally staunchly pro-Israel, come-what-may constituencies are cracking: The Right and MAGA in particular now feature leaders and influencers openly critical of Israel, such as Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tucker Carlson.
• Even American evangelicals are rapidly deserting the Zionist color.

The Economist has just acknowledged the collapse, with dread, under the headline “How Israel is losing America.”

There is nothing to debate regarding well-established facts: water is wet, blood is red, and Israel is committing acts of genocide.

Those who continue to deny this atrocity or attempt to discredit those reporting it as ‘Hamas proxies’ and ‘antisemites’—as Israel has, unsurprisingly—are merely providing additional evidence of their profound dishonesty.

As Chris Sidoti, a member of the UN Commission, observed during the presentation of its report, “no one takes such Israeli propaganda seriously anymore.” At least, not individuals with a functioning mind and a sense of moral integrity.

The real questions will shape humanity's future. The Gaza Genocide has already occurred; even if stopped now, it's too late—humanity missed its chance. Israeli perpetrators, who are open about their crime, should have been confronted with force by November 2023. Many future Palestinian victims could still be spared, but probably won’t.

The genocide is irreversible.

But the real issue—besides more lives lost—is whether this crime will become normal, a “Gaza Method,” apparently favored by Israel, the US, and the EU. Our world is bad and worsening, but some still see war and genocide as different. If the "Gaza Method" wins, war will become genocide, primarily if led by the West and Israel.

Read more
Arab states call for UN suspension of Israel.

Let’s focus on four key questions:

1. What are the consequences of Israel’s genocide?
2. Who among governments, media, and the public—especially in the West—are complicit or co-perpetrators?
3. Who are the bystanders—states, organizations, businesses, academia, think tanks—that have done nothing?
4. And what about the victims and their resistance, including armed struggle?

Regarding consequences, survivors must be protected, and perpetrators must be brought to justice. Israel's ongoing assault on Gaza—aimed at ethnic cleansing—makes protection crucial.

International law expert Craig Mokhiber suggests that the UN General Assembly could use the Uniting for Peace procedure to bypass the American veto and mandate an international protection force for Gaza.

Israel, supported by the US, UK, and Germany, would resist intervention. While initial steps are sensible, saving Gaza requires a more robust strategy. Israel is a criminal state under an insane regime, similar to Nazi Germany, and must be defeated militarily by a proactive coalition.

Realists will cite obstacles, but intervention is the only way to stop Gaza's genocide, Israel’s violence, and destabilization globally. Israel’s illegal nuclear arsenal, which threatens neighbors and the world, is a compelling reason to disarm it.

Read more
NATO nation cancels over $1 billion in Israeli arms deals – media

Israeli perpetrators must be punished widely because victims and families deserve justice, and Israel’s impunity fuels the genocide. Without decisive action, the situation will worsen, not just in Israel.

Apart from the military intervention that is genuinely required, an economic boycott becomes an unavoidable outcome. All trade and relations with this oppressive state must be halted. This issue is not limited to the West; it also involves the US, UK, Germany, and the EU, among others.

Critics of the emerging non-Western powers and advocates for a new multipolar order are right: Beijing and Moscow cannot stay genuinely neutral if they want to preserve their credibility. At minimum, they should spearhead a global effort to isolate Israel across all areas—economically, politically, and in every aspect of human activity.

De-Recognizing Israel

The first step is to shift the debate from whether to "recognize" Palestine, which is obvious and has been done by about 150 states. Instead, we need to discuss de-recognizing Israel, as it is not a typical state, and others should stop pretending it is.

Potential leaders should focus on guiding humanity to stand against harmful actions rather than blaming Israel or isolating it. By doing so, they strengthen their moral and political integrity. Offering support to victims across regions—from Gaza to Iran—can make a meaningful difference, even without deploying troops.

In the West, it’s time to create registers of those charged with complicity, including thousands of government officials, bureaucrats, and figures from academia, think tanks, and media who supported the genocide by spreading propaganda—from the “mass rape” hoax to concealing that many victims on 7 October 2023 were killed not by Palestinian Resistance but by Israeli forces during a “Hannibal” operation.

Starting with Julius Streicher at the Nuremberg Trials and reaffirmed in recent Rwandan Genocide trials, using media to incite crimes against humanity and genocide is considered a crime in itself. The international community will likely need to secure numerous new convictions in this domain.

Finally, corrections are needed: how can a Hamas fighter be labeled a 'terrorist' when, in truth, he has been desperately and improbably trying to stop Israel’s genocidal forces? This is illogical. Generally, Palestinians are entitled under international law to armed resistance. Resistance to genocide further emphasizes this right. Those who have fought worldwide—with protests, campus occupations, boycotts, or sabotaging Israeli arms manufacturers—deserve justice too. They should be recognized as exemplary rather than persecuted, as is happening in Germany, the UK, and the US.

Significant efforts are required to reverse the deterioration following the Gaza Genocide. It will necessitate several decades to address the repercussions of the crime and the associated complicity. There is no assurance that efforts will be made; however, failure to act may result in severe consequences in a world where genocide becomes commonplace or is tolerated.

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.buildi