Our Friday News Analysis | What the World Reads Now!

EDITORIAL | “The Best Way to Predict the Future is to Create It" (Part 26)

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
Click here for Part 17
Click here for Part 18
Click here for Part 19
Click here for Part 20
Click here for Part 21
Click here for Part 22
Click here for Part 23
Click here for Part 24
Click here for Part 25

EDITORIAL | The Devil in the Details

By Abraham A. van Kempen
28 November 2025

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

COL. DOUGLAS MACGREGOR, PHD | NATO LOST THE WAR - EMPIRE OF LIES COLLAPSES

Colonel Douglas MacGregor points out that the Western justification for the ongoing Ukraine conflict is quickly coming apart, with Ukrainian forces experiencing significant setbacks and rising political unrest.

• He feels that we might be relying too much on deterrence and suggests that a peaceful solution, similar to the Austrian State Treaty, could be beneficial for regional stability.

MacGregor encourages us to reassess American interests honestly and highlights that rebuilding strong relations with Moscow is key to ensuring a secure future for Europe.

Watch the Video Here (40 minutes, 13 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
26 November 2025

Reflections on Western Policy, Governance, and the War in Ukraine

Welcome back! Today, we feature Colonel Douglas MacGregor, a veteran, author, and ex-adviser to the U.S. Secretary of Defense. The Ukraine conflict remains key, with Trump proposing a peace plan that draws support and criticism, especially in Europe. Many believe Europe's security depends on deterrence to defend Ukraine, raising the question: Is Europe overly reliant on deterrence for safety?

The Collapse of Western Narratives

Colonel MacGregor calls the prevailing narrative absurd and rooted in Western deception, saying it justified the war against Russia at Ukraine’s expense and is now falling apart. He claims the Ukraine crisis is at a critical point, with reports of Ukrainian military disintegration and surrenders. MacGregor doubts peace negotiations will succeed and believes the rapid pace of events outstrips Western governments' response capabilities.

He cites the Austrian State Treaty as a wise example, highlighting its success in keeping Austria safe by avoiding NATO membership and foreign troops. MacGregor notes that as archives are declassified and more info emerges, Europe might reconsider the decisions of the 1950s and the reasons for decades of division.

Reevaluating American Interests

MacGregor stresses the US must clarify its interests in Central and Eastern Europe. He recommends rebuilding relations with Moscow to boost European security. He also expects political shifts in Germany, with parties like Alternative for Deutschland possibly gaining influence to help the country move away from conflicts.

Shifting Rhetoric in Europe

While Washington appears to pull back from the war, MacGregor notes Europe’s rhetoric is more assertive, with some nations openly considering confrontation with Russia. Germany, the UK, and France cite an existential threat, but MacGregor questions if these claims are genuine or driven by political desperation.

He notes that most people oppose war with Russia, with Europeans increasingly against further conflict. As Ukraine’s situation clarifies, politicians who thought the war would be easy to win will see their trust and influence diminish.

The Aftermath for Ukraine and Europe

MacGregor warns Europe may prioritize deporting Ukrainian refugees over ending conflicts with Russia. He fears unrest or retaliation from Ukrainian groups but believes Ukraine’s future depends on its people rebuilding. He mentions border changes, like Medvedev’s annexation or a confederation with Poland, which seem more likely as Europe faces disintegration.

Western Policy Contradictions

MacGregor highlights inconsistencies in Western policies, like selective military force use and shifting goals. He notes Ukraine isn't a top US focus and that overthrowing governments can lead to instability and unexpected results.

He warns Ukraine's collapse will hinder European efforts to seize Russian assets and portrays Ukraine as an organized crime state. MacGregor urges focusing on restoring stability rather than prolonging conflict.

Challenges Facing European Military Capabilities

MacGregor doubts Germany and Europe's ability to rebuild military forces to face Russia, citing the complexity and time needed. He notes that hostility towards Russia is weaker today, comparing current European attitudes with past mass mobilizations.

He notes European governments prioritize social issues like immigrant integration over war preparations, considering them more urgent than Russia's threat.

The Future of NATO and European Alliances

MacGregor observes NATO faces gradual decline, not collapse, due to Europe's diverse strategies. He suggests regional alliances might fill the gap and cites history, like Bismarck backing the Habsburgs, to show new political structures could develop in Central and Eastern Europe.

He advocates empowering European security leadership and suggests that the U.S. should step back to let Europeans shape their future, rather than dominating NATO.

The State of American Governance

MacGregor laments that personal and financial interests dominate American governance, causing confusion and frustration. Blurred political lines leave citizens feeling betrayed, emphasizing the need for transparency and unity.

He argues that a financialized economy promotes wealth through transactions, not productivity, criticizes Congress for self-enrichment over national interest, and warns that declining rationality and neglect of interests could threaten US and allies' stability.

Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy

Reflecting on failures like Afghanistan, MacGregor says NATO’s loss in Ukraine is a major turning point, ending the Cold War-era unipolar world. He argues that the American public focuses on domestic issues and likely won't support a Cold War-style containment of Russia, while globalist elites continue pushing policies opposed by most people.

MacGregor criticizes the merging of public and private interests in policy-making, citing unofficial negotiations and questionable advisory roles. He emphasizes the need for rationality and prioritizing national interests in foreign policy, warning that the fall of the “empire of lies” created by Washington and its allies is imminent.

Conclusion

MacGregor notes that political propaganda is waning, and the effects of the Ukraine conflict are clearer. He suggests accountability may follow, with NATO, the EU, and Washington on decline. He recommends focusing on restoring order and stability in Europe and the US.

MacGregor emphasizes that genuine reform depends on a collective awakening among policymakers and the public, calling for increased civic engagement to tackle systemic problems. He highlights transparency in governance and the restoration of trust between citizens and their leaders as crucial for national renewal.

This analysis questions the future of Western alliances and democracy. The disconnect between leaders and the public, plus economic and political pressures, highlight the need for reforms. Without rebuilding trust and emphasizing the common good, these institutions might weaken.

He stresses promoting open dialogue and debate in democracies. Supporting diverse views and critical thinking helps societies address challenges and adapt globally.

MacGregor stresses education and civic responsibility as key to democratic values. He argues that an informed, active citizenry is vital for holding leaders accountable and aligning government with people's interests. Encouraging political engagement protects against manipulation and fortifies democracy.

GUEST EDITORIAL | ZELENSKY IS SENDING A VERY IMPORTANT SIGNAL ABOUT TRUMP’S PEACE PLAN

The Ukrainian leader has left all options open in response to the 28-point draft – and that is a sensation in itself.

Vladimir Zelensky. © Henry Nicholls - WPA Pool/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
22 November 2025

Vladimir Zelensky's 10-minute speech to his people and the world about Russia and the US's 28-point peace plan may be misunderstood. It genuinely seeks connection and clarity, even if it appears complex at first.

Zelensky’s speech invited different interpretations, encouraging everyone to find their own meaning.

1. Was it a real effort to prepare for the plan, despite critics calling it Ukraine’s de facto surrender?
2. Or was the hidden message that Zelensky is trying to pressure Washington into imposing conditions that might undermine the plan, while also blaming Russia?
3. Alternatively, could Zelensky be delaying firm actions while exploring options and observing public and international reactions?

Zelensky’s speech was remarkable, not just for what he said, but for what he deliberately left unsaid—the absence of the word “no.”

Zelensky could have repeated Kiev’s usual 'red lines,' as Ukraine’s UN representative recently did. However, as Strana.ua noted, Zelensky didn't mention NATO membership or the stance against ceding unoccupied Russian territory.

Zelensky focused on vague statements open to multiple interpretations, like his oath and Ukraine’s national interest. Spin 101.

Read more
Either the difficult 28 points or a harsh winter – Zelensky

Zelensky emphasized the broad concept of "dignity," reassuring everyone that, regardless of what happens, Ukraine and its people will always retain their dignity.

Zelensky is involved in the sordid Energoatom corruption scandal, likely just the surface of larger wartime sleaze. His attempt to invoke virtues he lacks, along with his repulsive friends, must have seemed disturbing to many citizens.

Zelensky’s explanation highlights a strategic use of 'dignity” language to reinterpret the 2014 regime change involving Yanukovich's government, which was elected but toppled amidst false-flag killings. Moving from the 'revolution of dignity' to the 'diplomacy of dignity,” it raises questions about Ukraine's adjustments to heal and progress.

If so, the analogy is more accurate than Zelensky and his speechwriters might admit:

1. In 2013/2014, many idealists believed they fought for Ukraine against Yanukovich’s regime.
2. However, it was the EU-US/NATO Axis that betrayed them—not Moscow. NATO encouraged and took advantage of the rebellion to advance its own global interests in a larger power rivalry.
3. They were also betrayed by the same pro-Western “elites” and nationalists who massacred some of their own foot soldiers to create political leverage, as the Ukrainian-Canadian political scientist Ivan Katchanovsky has shown compellingly in his “The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: The Mass Killing that Changed the World.”

Read more
Trump peace plan for Ukraine: What we know so far

Similarly, during the unnecessary and easily stopped war that has now devastated Ukraine for years, many honest men and women have been cynically sacrificed to falsehoods spread by Kiev and its Western allies. These include:

1. The claim that Ukraine would be permitted to join NATO.
2. The assertion that the war was unprovoked, although the West had provoked Russia for twenty years through broken promises and NATO expansion, especially with false yet risky guarantees made at the 2008 Bucharest summit.
3. The misconception that dying and killing in this conflict for misguided, hubristic Western interests are about defending moral or civilizational "values" (a notion that Snyder and Applebaum have dubbed the Con).
4. The falsehood that the West would support Ukraine “whatever it takes.”

Zelensky tries to divert Ukrainians' attention with praise for bravery and resilience, but his true intent is to hide corruption in his authoritarian regime through their sacrifices.

He is desperately trying to make everyone forget one question: What for? Once Ukrainians stop fearing and face their true answer, it will stun them and then sweep Zelensky and his cronies away. It has all been for nothing, except the callous strategies of the West and more corruption and oppression at home.

Zelensky’s vague speech might—just possibly!—bring some hope. Despite his worst traits—his huge narcissism, profound dishonesty, fear, and greed—the Ukrainian leader has shown hints of possibly being willing to let his people break free from the relentless war that their country is unlikely to win.

Zelensky acknowledged tough choices between advancing their plan and winter prep, showing resolve and limits. He noted that NATO and EU Europeans often ask Ukraine for sacrifices without risking themselves. Zelensky stressed the importance of ending the war while maintaining Ukraine's strength. Although the 28-point plan aims to secure Ukraine's survival, he subtly admitted that peace may be hard to achieve if negotiations fail.

Read more
Putin responds to Washington’s Ukraine peace proposal.

Zelensky highlighted two other key points that may indicate he's finally prepared to lift Ukrainians from his regime’s deadly grip: he emphasized that Kiev will engage constructively in diplomacy and won’t allow Moscow to claim that Ukraine refuses to talk. Essentially, Zelensky vows to seek peace this time genuinely. Whether he will follow through is another matter.

Zelensky also acknowledged the limited time and emphasized that Kiev will move quickly. This directly refers to Washington's warning to withdraw support—including arms and essential intelligence—within a week if there is no progress, even among EU-NATO allies impacted by the conflict. It seems that delaying tactics are no longer acceptable.

The opponents of peace in Ukraine, Western countries, and especially NATO-EU Europe—those false ‘friends’ from hell who are obsessed with Ukrainians dying over broken Western promises and a misguided effort to weaken Russia that has already failed—are rallying to block peace. It’s déjà vu all over again, as a wise American might have said.

Authentic friendship with Ukraine requires ending this catastrophe on terms recognizing Russia's advantage, seen as the only practical way forward, not capitulation. It's a pragmatic compromise, unlike naive hopes of scholars or German experts whose grasp of reality is fragile, reminiscent of early 1945 Berlin bunker leadership.

It’s time to cease sacrificing people to twisted visions. If — just if! — Zelensky in Ukraine has finally been forced to accept this, then maybe peace is possible.

Tarik Cyril Amar, PhD, is a distinguished historian and expert in international politics. He holds a BA in Modern History from Oxford, an MSc in International History from the London School of Economics (LSE), and a PhD from Princeton.

His scholarships include the Holocaust Memorial Museum and Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute. He was also director of the Center for Urban History in Lviv, Ukraine. Originally German, he has lived in the UK, Ukraine, Poland, the US, and Turkey.

Dr. Amar’s book, 'The Paradox of Ukrainian Lviv,' was published by Cornell in 2015. He's working on a study about Cold War TV spy stories and a new volume on Ukraine's international response. He has shared insights in interviews, including on Rania Khalek Dispatches and Breakthrough News.

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

PROF. FYODOR LUKYANOV: RUSSIA WON THE WAR - CAN RUSSIA WIN THE PEACE?

Prof. Glenn Diesen’s conversation with Prof. Fyodor Lukyanov analyzes the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, focusing on the uncertainty of a peace deal and the risks if none is reached.

• The conversation highlights concerns over Ukraine's neutrality, territorial issues, and the potential for prolonged conflict or insurgency.
• It also touches on Russia's likely stopping point, determined by Ukrainian resistance and Russian conditions, and examines American and Russian motivations, including skepticism about former President Trump's intentions and the strategic irrelevance of Russia rejoining the G8.

Ultimately, the dialogue reflects differing perspectives on the future trajectory of the war and the complex interplay of international interests.

Watch the Video Here (29 minutes, xx seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
26 November 2025

Interview with Professor Fyodor Lukyanov: Perspectives on the Russia-Ukraine Conflict and Peace Proposals

Welcome back! We're excited to have Professor Fyodor Lukyanov, a research professor and editor-in-chief at Russia in Global Affairs. We explore the Russia-Ukraine conflict, peace possibilities, and different plans, including ideas from the Trump administration and Europe. We hope you find this discussion insightful!

Prof. Fyodor Lukyanov is Chairman of the Council on Foreign and Defence Policy, a Research Professor at the Higher School of Economics, Editor in Chief of the Russia in Global Affairs Journal, and the Research Director at the Valdai Discussion Club.

Prof. Lukyanov argues that Russian demands for peace are not maximalist; instead, the consistent demand to restore Ukraine’s neutrality has become a territorial dispute as the conflict has escalated over the years and grown more complex.

Existential Conflict and Maximalist Goals

Both Russia and Ukraine see the conflict as vital, leaving little room for compromise. Each side aims for ambitious goals and is ready to take risks. Europe might not face a direct threat, but it has much at stake. Currently, Russia's victory seems more likely, and many experts doubt it can be stopped. The key question is whether Russia can establish lasting peace after a forced win or if peace might unravel later.

Russian Demands and the Nature of Peace Proposals

Since the commencement of the military campaign, the Russian leadership has consistently upheld core demands. These often maximalist conditions constitute a package deemed necessary to end hostilities and establish stable security arrangements in Eastern Europe, and potentially across all of Europe.

The principal demand remains that Ukraine must not pose a military threat to Russia, either directly or indirectly through other nations. Although territorial issues have gained prominence—particularly following the breakdown of the Istanbul process in early 2022—the primary Russian demands continue to focus on security and Ukraine's status, especially its neutrality and military capabilities.

Analysis of Peace Plans: American and European Proposals

Recent peace initiatives, such as the Trump administration’s 28-point plan, demonstrate some consideration for Russian security concerns, but they remain overly vague and lack detail. As negotiations progress, critical elements of importance to Russia are likely to be omitted, rendering these proposals unacceptable to Russia. The European counterproposals additionally require NATO expansion, the authorization to deploy troops, security assurances for Ukraine, the avoidance of territorial concessions, and reparations from Russia. These demands reflect a maximalist approach from Europe, seeking to impose its terms of peace irrespective of the conflict's outcome.

Potential Deal Breakers and Core Issues

Russia's main deal breakers include demanding that Ukraine withdraw forces from parts of Donbas not controlled by Russia, which is a symbolically difficult demand for Ukraine. The size of Ukraine’s military (up to 600,000 troops as proposed in the American draft) and the issue of neutrality are also key points of contention. Russia insists that Ukraine’s military strength and NATO ties must be limited to alleviate Russian security worries. While territorial control remains important, it primarily serves as a safeguard to prevent Ukraine from becoming a future frontline against Russia.

Risks of No Peace Agreement

Should a peace agreement not be reached, Russia faces a difficult decision: halting proceedings prematurely could result in a prolonged insurgency, whereas advancing further west risks strategic entrapment. Nonetheless, it is generally believed that Russia does not seek to occupy western Ukraine. Most analysts concur that if Ukraine refuses to surrender, the conflict will persist with continuous losses on both sides until Ukraine is unable to continue resisting and agrees to terms favorable to Russia. President Putin has also indicated that each subsequent proposal to Ukraine will be less advantageous than the previous one, particularly regarding territorial concessions.

The Role and Intentions of the Trump Administration

The Trump administration’s peace proposal looks like an initial draft, with some points that Russia might find hard to agree on, like the idea of redirecting seized Russian assets during the conflict to Ukraine. Actions like restoring Russia’s membership in the G8 seem mostly symbolic and are generally seen as unimportant, since Russia and the other members don't support its return. Trump sincerely wants to end the war, relying more on instinct than detailed plans or a team effort. Some parts of the plan, such as the Gaza settlement, reflect influences from other situations and are reflected in the proposed peace process’s structure.

Challenges of Implementing a Peace Treaty

There is significant doubt about the effective enforcement of a complex peace treaty, particularly given the failure to implement simpler accords, such as Minsk. Within Russia, it is maintained that, as long as military actions persist, Russia’s position is acknowledged; however, once hostilities cease, other actors are expected to unite against Russian interests. Consequently, Russia regards a ceasefire without a comprehensive agreement as unacceptable.

On Regime Change and Strategic Realities in Ukraine

Questions have emerged about why Russia has not attempted a regime change in Ukraine as the United States has done elsewhere. Russia generally lacks both the capacity and the tradition for such interventions, with historical efforts often yielding poor results, such as in Afghanistan in 1979. Changes in neighboring countries’ governments toward more Russia-friendly regimes tend to result from internal political dynamics rather than direct Russian interference. The Ukrainian political scene is complex; even leaders seen as pro-Russian usually prioritize Ukrainian sovereignty and often distance themselves from Russia. There is little indication of a pro-Russian base within Ukraine capable of instigating regime change from inside.

Conclusion

Professor Glenn Diesen’s interview with Professor Fyodor Lukyanov highlights the complexities of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the difficulties in securing lasting peace. Key issues include Ukraine’s military status, neutrality, and territorial arrangements, with both sides firmly committed to their positions. Establishing a sustainable peace agreement remains uncertain, given historical precedents and current interactions among the parties involved.

These considerations underscore the intricate balance of power and the importance of diplomatic efforts moving forward. Both international stakeholders and regional actors remain highly invested in the outcome, with repercussions extending beyond the immediate region. Ultimately, the future of Ukraine will depend not only on the willingness of its leaders and citizens to negotiate but also on the evolving priorities and strategies of global powers involved in the conflict.

Recent developments suggest that diplomatic channels remain open, yet are fraught with mistrust and competing agendas. International mediators continue to urge both sides toward dialogue, emphasizing the necessity of incremental confidence-building measures to prevent further escalation. The involvement of external actors, including the European Union and the United States, adds layers of complexity to any prospective negotiations, as each stakeholder brings its own security concerns and strategic interests to the table.

FYODOR LUKYANOV | PEACE WILL COME ONLY WHEN KIEV ACCEPTS REALITY

Why Ukraine won’t be immediately forced to accept the 28 points of the peace plan

FILE PHOTO. © Jose Colon / Anadolu via Getty Images

By Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and research director of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

Russia in Global Affairs RGA on Telegram

HomeRussia & FSU
25 November 2025

The student radicals in Paris during 1968 would chant: “Be realistic – demand the impossible.” It was a clever slogan for a revolutionary moment. But what occurs when revolution isn't possible, and reality can’t be ignored?

Wars conclude in various ways. Some end with the destruction of an opponent, while others are settled through negotiated exchanges of gains and losses. Some conflicts burn on indefinitely, becoming pointless before reigniting years later. History provides numerous examples, but public awareness often fixates on recent cases, particularly those embedded in national mythology or modern moral stories. This tendency has caused many to view the 20th century as a typical pattern.

It wasn’t …

Please continue reading …

PROF. JEFFREY SACHS | US STILL WOEFULLY IGNORANT OF RUSSIA.

This document presents a comprehensive discussion led by Judge Andrew Napolitano and Professor Jeffrey Sachs, focusing on the Ukraine war, U.S. and European policies, and the Israel-Palestine conflict. Key topics include economic instability in the United States, the enduring value of gold, the origins and content of a U.S.-drafted 28-point peace plan for Ukraine, and the challenges facing diplomatic efforts. The conversation highlights leadership dilemmas, U.S. policy consistency, and the ongoing humanitarian impact of protracted conflicts.

Watch the Video Here (34 minutes, 24 seconds)

Host: Judge Andrew Napolitano
Judging Freedom
24 November 2025

Analysis of the Ukraine War, U.S. Policy, and the Israel-Palestine Conflict

The section features Judge Andrew Napolitano and Professor Jeffrey Sachs discussing the Ukraine conflict, U.S. and European policies, diplomacy, the Middle East crisis, especially Israel and Palestine, with commentaries on leadership, peace, and geopolitical interests.

The Origins and Content of the 28-Point Peace Plan

Professor Jeffrey Sachs re-enters the discussion in the U.S., stating the 28-point peace plan was prepared by the U.S. and mentioning talks between President Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, and Russian officials. The Ukraine peace framework emphasizes neutrality and halting NATO expansion.

Sachs recalls a nearly finalized peace deal between Russia and Ukraine in April 2022. The U.S., the EU, and the UK advised Ukraine not to sign, leading to resistance. The deal included Ukrainian neutrality, limits on NATO expansion, and recognition of territorial changes. The 28-point plan emphasizes these principles as a basis to end the war. However, aggressive policies in the U.S. and Europe have hindered progress, prolonging Ukraine's suffering.

Leadership Dilemmas and U.S. Policy Consistency

The discussion highlights President Zelensky’s challenge: balancing national pride and risk of losing U.S. support. Sachs urges the U.S. to prioritize its interests, understand Ukraine’s needs, and pursue collective security. If Ukraine’s leaders reject a helpful peace plan, Sachs argues the U.S. should withdraw support and let Ukraine decide its own course.

The discussion also covers the wider military implications of the peace proposals, referencing earlier agreements that limited Ukraine’s military size and contrasting them with current plans for a much larger force.

Sachs emphasizes that Russia’s main concern is the EU-US/NATO military presence close to its borders, not Ukraine itself.

The Roots of the Conflict and NATO Expansion

Sachs traces the origins of the conflict to the early 1990s, when the EU-US Collective West expanded NATO eastward despite Russia's security concerns. NATO's support for Ukraine's future membership remains a source of tension. Sachs notes that, although President Trump occasionally opposed NATO expansion in his first term, U.S. policies have been inconsistent due to internal political pressures. This inconsistency and ambiguous messaging have contributed to persistent hostilities.

Perceptions of Threat and American Exceptionalism

Judge Napolitano questions why the U.S. ignores Russia’s security concerns, especially regarding American and British missiles near Moscow. Sachs responds by criticizing U.S. foreign policy's inconsistency, which prioritizes American interests without considering others’ perspectives. He claims this approach causes ongoing conflicts and doesn't serve America's long-term interests.

Reactions to European and Ukrainian Leadership

The commentary criticizes Ursula von der Leyen’s remarks on peace and sovereignty. Sachs calls her statements superficial, notes the lack of diplomatic efforts with Russia, and says that talks about Ukraine focus on military alliances rather than EU membership. He also points out that the EU hasn't directly engaged diplomatically with Russia.

President Zelensky comes under criticism for his leadership during the conflict. Sachs describes him as detached from the suffering of the Ukrainian people and suggests that personal or political motives may influence his decisions.

Analysis of U.S. Leadership and Foreign Policy

The analysis criticizes the current U.S. administration for its vague and inconsistent foreign policy. President Trump is portrayed as indecisive, easily swayed by advisers, and lacking firm positions on major issues. This perceived weakness, along with limited direct communication with the American people, has resulted in confusion and persistent international conflicts.

The Situation in Israel and the Broader Middle East

Turning to the Middle East, Napolitano and Sachs analyze Israel’s military actions in Lebanon and the surrounding region. Sachs claims that Israel operates with impunity due to strong U.S. support, and he considers the lack of a recognized Palestinian state as the primary barrier to peace. Sachs asserts that without addressing this fundamental issue, the conflict will persist across the region.

The discussion shows that the U.S. military has shifted towards supporting ongoing conflicts, contradicting the wishes of the American people and the core principle of “America First.” This disparity is fueling growing opposition within the U.S. political base.

Public Opinion and Reactions to the Peace Plan

A poll of viewers shows skepticism about the 28-point plan's success before Thanksgiving, underscoring the challenges of achieving peace.

Perspectives on the Israel-Palestine Conflict

The discussion challenges and counters extreme opinions that dismiss Palestinian identity and rights. It critiques explicitly a British commentator’s claim that only Jews have legitimate claims to the land. Sachs strongly rejects this notion, distinguishing it from Judaism and linking it to extremist Zionist beliefs that diminish Palestinian humanity. This perspective has caused significant suffering and has drawn widespread international condemnation of Israeli actions in Gaza.

Sachs notes that most Jewish people, including himself, find these opinions repulsive and highlights the ongoing genocide and humanitarian crises in Gaza. The conversation also raises concerns about Israel’s inquiry into the October 7th events, pointing to entrenched interests and a lack of transparency in government.

Concluding Reflections

The session concludes by recognizing Professor Sachs’s steadfast intellectual honesty and bravery. Looking ahead, Judge Napolitano emphasizes upcoming discussions with various experts and provides further analysis of international events related to peace and security.

PROF. PAUL ROBINSON: RUSSIA'S WORLD ORDER

Prof. Glenn Diesen and Prof. Paul Robinson discuss contrasting models of conservatism and development in Russia and Ukraine:

• Russia is integrating its imperial, Soviet, and post-Soviet pasts, and Ukraine is aiming to decommunize.
• Robinson analyzes Russia’s civilizational discourse, emphasizing its identity as a unique civilization opposed to the Western liberal order, which shapes Russia’s push for a multipolar global system.

Robinson, a professor at the University of Ottawa, also discusses his book, “Russia’s World Order,” and the resurgence of civilizational discourse in Russia.

Watch the Video Here (51 minutes, 41 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
18 November 2025

Russia's World Order: Civilizational Discourse and the Multipolar Challenge

Welcome back to the program! We're excited to have Professor Paul Robinson with us today as he dives into his latest book on Russia's World Order.

The primary focus is on how Russia sees its role and identity in the world, especially its view of itself as a distinct civilizational state apart from the Western-led liberal order.

The Civilizational Discourse in Russia

• Russia's civilizational discourse underscores its belief that it is not merely part of or on the periphery of the Western system but identifies as a unique civilization with its values and development. Professor Robinson explains this through the lens of civilizationism, which emphasizes competing views of progress and history.
• The Western perspective, exemplified by thinkers such as Francis Fukuyama, sees history as a linear progression towards Western institutions and values.
• Conversely, civilizationism promotes the idea of a world composed of multiple civilizations, each with its own distinct development path.
• While this concept has been part of Russian thought for over 150 years, it has only recently gained prominence among Russian leaders and policymakers. Over the last decade, they have increasingly integrated this view into official documents and educational resources.
• This multi-civilization perspective advocates for a multipolar global order, challenging Western dominance and supporting the legitimacy of diverse development models.

Universalism and Russian Discontent

Professor Robinson notes radical states often envision ideal worlds and feel duty-bound to break barriers. This pattern is common in the post-Cold War liberal order, where nonconformist states are marginalized. Russia's resentment toward this universalist approach stems from its history: communist universalism and the 1990s free-market reforms, both of which caused dissatisfaction.

By the mid-1990s, Russian intellectuals explored alternative models like modern Eurasianism, which, despite initial marginalization, has recently gained support among policymakers.

Historical Roots of Civilizational Thinking

The debate over Russia's civilizational identity dates back to the 19th century, mainly between Westernizers and Slavophiles. Slavophiles believed Russia should follow a unique spiritual path different from the West, which they saw as empty. Thinkers like Danilevsky and Leontiev emphasized the distinct civilizational journeys of Russia and the West, valuing diversity over a universal ideal. Today, discussions about Russian civilization remain complex, sometimes rejecting, sometimes embracing the idea of a universal civilization.

Cycles of Civilizations and Russia's Identity

Scholars of civilization have long debated whether civilizations go through cycles of growth and decline. Regarding Russia, some see the West as decadent, while Russia is viewed as a protector of tradition and spiritual strength. However, many supporters of Russian civilization acknowledge Russia's deep historical ties to Europe, revealing ongoing contradictions.

State Power and Ideological Messaging

Professor Robinson highlights that the modern Russian state differs from traditional ideological societies; it is notably anti-ideological, shown by the constitution's ban on a state ideology. Yet, ideological language increasingly appears, especially in justifying government actions both domestically and internationally. While policies focus on national interests, they often feature civilizational and anti-colonial themes, appealing to the global South and framing Russia as a challenger to Western dominance.

Russian Conservative Critiques of the West

Russian conservatives view their opposition not as against Europe, but as a response to the West's drift from core values like Christianity, family, and patriotism. Some believe Russia embodies "true European" values, seeing European civilization as in decline or fallen. This creates a duality in Russian identity: they see themselves as both European and fundamentally different.

Multipolarity and Civilizational Justification

Russia's view of a multipolar world aims to preserve its status as a great power and showcase its unique civilization. It supports policies that differ from Western norms, such as centralized governance and resistance to social change, while defending its right to choose its development path despite Western criticism. Russia questions the dominance and rule-bending of Western-led institutions, advocating a more balanced power balance. Civilizationalism thus provides a foundation for political ideas prioritizing national interests.

From Universalism to Anti-Universalism

During the Soviet era, Russia promoted Marxism to unite opposition against the West. Today, it views itself as a Christian, traditional civilization, but still allies with other non-Western powers against Western universalism. This alliance now relies on anti-universalism rather than offering an alternative universalist vision. It's a subtle shift that Western observers might miss.

The Limits of the Autocracy vs. Democracy Frame

Western discussions often see the global divide as a rivalry between liberal democracies and autocracies. However, Russian civilizationist thinkers don't suggest a different universal model; they believe multiple civilizational paths are valid. Countries like China and India share this opposing view to universalism, and many in the global South are wary of Western claims to universality because of colonial histories.

Universal Values and Pragmatism

Emphasizing liberal democratic values explains Western leadership and views on non-conforming countries. However, it can cause resentment and misunderstandings by failing to account for different security concerns and development paths. The Western belief that history moves in a fixed way underpins policies that may create opposition and instability, highlighting the need for a more inclusive approach.

Civilizational Rhetoric in the Ukraine War

While power struggles initially sparked the Ukraine conflict, both sides increasingly frame their positions in civilizational terms. Ukraine's liberals hope to 'return to civilization,' aligning with the West, while Russia is seen as the 'non-civilization' or 'barbaric,' as labeled by Western and Ukrainian leaders and media.

On the battlefield, Russian forces use Soviet, imperial, and Orthodox Christian symbols to create unity by blending various historical elements into a shared national identity.

Ukraine's post-Maidan approach emphasizes decommunization and distancing from old symbols, signaling a new chapter.

Conclusion

Professor Robinson's analysis highlights Russia's worldview, shaped by historical and ideological factors. Civilizational discourse, emphasizing diversity and resisting universalism, provides a basis for Russia's domestic and international policies. Understanding these dynamics is key to grasping current conflicts and global shifts.

For further insight into these themes, readers should refer to Professor Robinson's book, "Russia's World Order."

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