The Friday Edition

Our Friday News Analysis | What the World Reads Now!

June 04, 2026

Helping to Heal a Broken Humanity (Part 93)

The Hague, 5 June 2026 | If you know of a decisive story, tell the world! We're still searching.

Our Friday News Analysis | What the World Reads Now!

Even when our belief in the fundamental goodness of every human being has been shaken or undermined, and even if long-held convictions and attitudes have hardened our hearts, there remains one source of power stronger than any disappointment, bitterness, or ingrained mistrust.

That power is in reconciliation to forgive.

Saint Pope John Paul II
Drogheda, Ireland – 29 September 1979

Building the Bridge Foundation

This week’s reflection: “Power to Forgive, to Reconcile, to Live.”

Click here for Part 48
Click here for Part 49

Click here for Part 50

Click here for Part 51

Click here for Part 52

Click here for Part 53

Click here for Part 54

OUR WEDNESDAY NEWS ANALYSIS | WESTERN LEADERS PLAY THEIR PART IN OUR CHARADE DEMOCRACIES. CAN YOU SPOT THE TELL?

The super-rich and their vassals are deeply invested in the system because it richly rewards them. They’ll deploy everything they can – from the media to the ‘security’ forces – to prevent change

Two pronounced – and inverse – trends in Western societies have long been observable, and yet they are rarely noticed or discussed ... Read more!

Editorial | Unipolar Autocracy, Multipolar Autonomy, or a Hybrid of Either or Both

By Abraham A. van Kempen
5 June 2026

To be continued on Monday, 8 June 2026.

Enjoy your weekend,

Abraham A. van Kempen
Senior Editor

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

Remember! Diplomacy is catalytic—transformative —while military action is cataclysmic—destructive and catastrophic.

When faced with the options to be good, bad, or ugly, let’s build bridges, not burn them. After all, mutual deterrence reigns.

A MESSAGE FROM COLONEL DOUG MACGREGOR: “WHAT FOR?”

Why are we stuck in this quagmire? What's the purpose?

Watch the Video Here (14 minutes, 49 seconds)

Host: Judge Andrew Napolitano
Judging Freedom
01 June 2026

A war that you didn't choose to vote for, and a supply chain that gets stuck at Hormuz.

Colonel Douglas Macgregor links fuel, fertilizer, food prices, and foreign influence in a single sharp thesis.

Full tank, grocery bills increasing—then pose the question that no one in Washington wants to face on camera: "Who governs this country and for whose benefit?"

Consider the argument and decide for yourself.

For more, view the video.

LARRY JOHNSON: DOES IRAN HAVE THE BOMB? PART 2

Judge Napolitano and retired CIA analyst Larry Johnson analyze how unverified but credible nuclear claims are presented, focusing on:

Source credibility
Strategic signaling, and
Changes in political rhetoric.

Instead of presenting concrete evidence, the discussion develops an interpretive narrative that connects:

Military escalation
Failed diplomacy, and
Deterrence logic.

This approach demonstrates how uncertainty can 1) influence perceptions, 2) policy decisions, and 3) geopolitical risks.

Watch the Video Here (22 minutes, 39 seconds)

Host: Judge Andrew Napolitano
Judging Freedom
3 June 2026

Judge Napolitano’s conversation with retired CIA Analyst Larry Johnson centers on unverified yet credible claims that Iran might have a collection of nuclear devices, mainly based on information from a trusted Pakistani source.

Mr. Johnson considered the claim plausible because certain reported developments seemed to match subsequent events, such as Iran’s withdrawal from negotiations and shifts in U.S. public messaging.

He also indicates that regional military escalation and the failure of previous diplomatic efforts might have changed Iran’s strategic thinking.

The discussion consistently recognizes that the main claim cannot be independently verified. Overall, it emphasizes uncertainty, different interpretations, and the possible importance of nuclear ambiguity in regional diplomacy.

For more, view the video.

FROM TEHRAN | PROF. SEYED M. MARANDI: HOW IRAN LURED TRUMP INTO A TRAP

Prof. Seyed M. Marandi examines how unverified assertions about Iran’s nuclear capabilities are formed through source attribution, strategic reasoning, and political language.
Instead of simply confirming facts, the analysis reveals how the credibility of credibility, military escalation, and diplomatic failures intertwine to shape a narrative where ambiguity becomes politically significant.

Watch the Video Here (24 minutes, 46 seconds)

Host: Judge Andrew Napolitano
Judging Freedom
3 June 2026

Judge Napolitano’s discussion with Prof. Seyed M. Marandi presents Iran’s strategy as calibrated deterrence rather than open escalation.

Marandi contends that Tehran is using paused indirect negotiations and the possibility of retaliation to compel Washington to curb Israel’s operations in Lebanon and Gaza, all while maintaining uncertainty about its nuclear stance.

He questions unverified assertions that Iran has a nuclear weapon, clarifying the difference between technological ability and official policy, while highlighting the ongoing moral and political significance of the anti-nuclear fatwa.

The interview also questions the reliability of Western coverage of Iranian internal politics, implying that information warfare influences international perceptions. Overall, the conversation depicts diplomacy, coercion, and narrative battles as closely connected.

For more, view the video.

GUEST EDITORIAL | A WAR WITH NO END IN SIGHT

The Iran War could prove a decisive factor in the fall’s elections in Israel and the US

Iranian women walk past an anti-US and anti-Israeli mural in Tehran on June 3. / Photo by Atta Kenare / AFP via Getty Images.

By Seymour Hersh
Substack.com
3 June 2026

President Trump’s conflict with Iran has lasted four months. US and Israeli bombings began in February, prompting Iran's missile and drone attacks on Israeli, US, and Middle Eastern sites. Pakistan-backed peace talks stalled. Trump, frustrated, previously threatened to destroy Iran and now called talks "very boring.”

Americans facing higher gasoline and food prices due to the war and Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz feel more than boredom.

I have covered international crises since the Vietnam War and maintain long-standing relationships with two individuals: one from American intelligence and a senior Israeli military veteran. Recently, I discussed the ongoing Iran conflict with both. They are highly educated, experienced in combat, and knowledgeable about history and military actions. Their insights were valuable but conflicting.

Please continue reading ...

THEODORE POSTOL: IRAN CAN NOW BUILD 10-20 NUCLEAR WEAPONS - U.S. MUST NEGOTIATE

MIT Professor and Pentagon advisor Ted Postol states that Iran has the capability to produce 10-20 nuclear weapons immediately.

He contends that pursuing negotiations with Iran is preferable to escalating threats or attacks, as this capability supports diplomatic engagement.
Prof. Postol views Iran’s nuclear challenge as primarily a matter of capability, deterrence, and policy choices, not irrationality.
Using technical points about uranium enrichment, centrifuge efficiency, warhead design, and missile delivery, he claims Iran could quickly develop a significant nuclear arsenal if necessary.
The core political argument is that Tehran knows weaponization would harm its security by prompting regional proliferation, especially in Saudi Arabia.
Therefore, coercion and military pressure are seen as counterproductive, making diplomacy the only viable strategy to avoid escalation and ensure nuclear stability in the long run.

Watch the Video Here (67 minutes, 00 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
17 May 2026

Prof. Glenn Diesen’s discussion with Prof. Ted Postol offers a sharply argued evaluation of Iran’s nuclear capabilities and the resulting policy implications.

The main assertion is that Iran currently has the technical expertise, enriched uranium, centrifuge capacity, and missile delivery systems necessary to quickly assemble nuclear weapons if its leadership opts to proceed.

Diplomacy is identified as the only realistic strategy for reducing nuclear risk and avoiding escalation.

For more, view the video.

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

HERE’S HOW PUTIN AND XI CAN SAVE THE WEST FROM ITSELF

The recent summit in Beijing confirmed one thing – the unipolar era is over

By Ladislav Zemánek, non-resident research fellow at China-CEE Institute and expert of the Valdai Discussion Club

HomeWorld News
22 May 2026

“The Russia-China partnership isn't a crusade against the West but a revolt against unipolarity—the idea that one civilization, ideology,
and political model should dominate forever.”

The recent Putin-Xi summit raised Western fears. The Russia-China alliance is seen as an authoritarian bloc against the ‘free world,’ with headlines warning of a new anti-Western coalition. Think tanks use alarmist language, and liberal commentators warn of a new Cold War.

But beneath the hysteria lies a simpler reality: The old world order is losing its grip.

The Russia-China partnership isn't a crusade against the West but a revolt against unipolarity—the idea that one civilization, ideology, and political model should dominate forever. Moscow and Beijing haven't been trying to destroy the international system; they have been creating alternatives to the Western-dominated order for decades.

This distinction is crucial. Putin and Xi support a multipolar world where civilizations can pursue their paths without oversight from Washington, Brussels, or liberal bodies. Rather than threatening Europe and America, this shift could save them from political and civilizational fatigue.

The cracks in the liberal world order—A Russia-China Declaration in 1997

When Russia and China issued a joint declaration on multipolarity in 1997, few in the West took it seriously. The Soviet Union had dissolved, American dominance was unchallengeable, and globalization was poised to engulf the world. Fukuyama’s ‘end of history’ thesis captured the era's spirit. Borders were expected to diminish, and sovereignty was seen as outdated. Globalization accelerated as NATO expanded eastward.

Russia and China sensed the fragility beneath American dominance, understanding that a world with a single ideology would bring instability, arrogance, overreach, and resistance. This unfolded through wars, interventions, crises, deindustrialization, migration, censorship, social fragmentation, and nihilism, gradually weakening the liberal model.

Nearly 30 years later, Putin and Xi revisit the same idea from a stronger position.

Please continue reading by scrolling down in the Friday News Analysis from 28 May 2026.

BETWEEN HEGEMONY AND PLURALISM: RETHINKING UNIPOLAR AUTOCRACY VERSUS MULTIPOLAR AUTONOMY – A MORE-OR-LESS WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Why today’s contest is less a moral showdown than a struggle over power, legitimacy, and the shape of global order

By Abraham A. van Kempen
1 June 2026

A common perspective on today's geopolitics views it as a struggle between Western efforts to maintain dominance in a unipolar world (Unipolar Autocracy) and non-Western nations seeking greater independence in a multipolar world (Multipolar Autonomy). This perspective emphasizes two main issues: the critique that the liberal order often pushes Western values without a sufficiently fair assessment, and the demands from emerging powers and postcolonial states for a more equitable share of sovereignty, representation, and influence in global institutions. This explanation highlights real tensions. Though it addresses major conflicts, it downplays significant differences in power and legitimacy, coercion and consent, and reform and revolution.

Why the thesis is persuasive

The argument resonates because the post-Cold War order has never been just a neutral, rules-based system. It has offered real public goods like open trade routes, financial ties, alliance guarantees, and institutional coordination. At the same time, it has relied on differences in enforcement.

Western powers promoted international law but faced criticism for selectively interpreting it, imposing sanctions, intervening, and promoting norms in a hierarchical manner. Iraq's memory influences views of universal legality, and disputes over Kosovo, Libya, and Gaza deepen the perception that principles are applied variably based on the violator and the protected. This creates a paradox: an international order that is liberal in rhetoric but punitive in practice.

Please continue reading by scrolling down in the Monday News Analysis from 01 June 2026

ST. PETERSBURG INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC FORUM 2026: IS THE WEST RETURNING?

While AI is set to dominate this year’s proceedings, a key dialogue with a former partner is being reconstructed

RT composite. © Sputnik / Pelagiya Tikhonova; Getty Images / Alexander Sikov

HomeRussia & FSU
2 June 2026

Respectfully annotated by Abraham A. van Kempen

The St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) will take place from June 3-6. For nearly thirty years, it has reflected global shifts and grown with the world.

Originally meant to attract foreign investment to Russia, the event was called "Russia’s Davos" in the 2000s, when Western business leaders flew to St. Petersburg on private jets seeking opportunities. Today, SPIEF's atmosphere has changed, but it remains a key Russian economic forum and a vital venue for analyzing global economic shifts.

This year’s event is expected to draw many prominent figures from Russia’s top business and political sectors, along with international representatives. Called a “window to Europe' by Alexander Pushkin, St. Petersburg continues evolving into a welcoming gateway to a new, multipolar world.

History

Founded in 1997, SPIEF was created during Russia’s shift to a market economy. Its goal was to attract foreign investment and present Russia as a business-friendly nation post-Soviet. However, a year after its launch, Russia defaulted on its debt and faced an economic crisis.

Nevertheless, the forum persisted, and as Russia’s economy grew in the 2000s, Western banks, energy companies, consultancies, and industrial firms increasingly attended SPIEF. It evolved into a major fixture on the global business schedule.

Read more
China-Russia-US relations: Zero-sum is gone for good

In 2007, SPIEF and the World Economic Forum signed a cooperation agreement, reflecting Russia’s wish to be seen as fully part of the era of globalization. During this period, the nickname "Russian Davos" became widely used.

Russia’s role in the current multipolar world has led many to think SPIEF always focused on Eurasia, BRICS, and the Global South. But this isn’t entirely true. Around 2010-2013, attending the forum, one might have seen major Wall Street banks, European energy firms, and European leaders. Notable past attendees included Angela Merkel, Jean-Claude Juncker, Christine Lagarde, Lloyd Blankfein, and Rex Tillerson. During that period, Russia aimed to establish itself as a key player in the global economy.

Traditionally, SPIEF focused on energy, with Western oil and gas executives meeting every June in St. Petersburg, often under midnight sun. Bankers and businesspeople mingled informally, exchanging ideas and deals in a relaxed setting.

During the late 2000s and 2010s, SPIEF was a key forum for major energy and infrastructure agreements involving Russia, Europe, China, and others. While negotiations took place elsewhere, many deals were announced at SPIEF because of its high profile and visibility.

Over the years, the presidential address has become a key forum component, with analysts examining these speeches for policy clues.

Read more
Putin announces international AI alliance

The 2022 conflict in Ukraine altered the event but didn't erase it. Many see it as more significant due to the shift in global power away from the West. Some view the reduced Western presence at SPIEF as evidence that Russia feels more isolated, while others see it as part of a move towards Eurasia and a multipolar world.

Western media calls the post-2022 SPIEF outdated, with a former participant calling it "totally toxic" for the absence of Western dignitaries, which is seen as a loss of prestige. Many reports overlook that Western elites are losing trust and popularity at home, explaining their absence.

Last year’s event had 24,200 participants and media from 144 countries, with over a thousand agreements signed. The largest delegations were from Indonesia and China.

In the spotlight this year: AI

AI has become a priority for the Russian government, with President Putin establishing a commission to advance AI and coordinate state policy.

A senior Sberbank executive told RT that “Russia has fertile soil for AI-linked business development.” The bank also published Russia’s first detailed guide on incorporating AI into digital companies’ production processes.

AI is a major focus at this year’s SPIEF, with 14 roundtable sessions explicitly including AI, plus numerous other talks over the three days.

The AI discussion has evolved significantly in just a few years. At SPIEF 2023—held months after ChatGPT's rise—the focus was on techno-optimism. Sberbank’s official release highlighted AI capabilities and their use. The questions raised mirrored those of many countries, implying that Russia was making notable progress.

Please continue reading...

‘EXCLUSIVE: MARIA ZAKHAROVA JOINS ‘SANCHEZ EFFECT’ ON THE SIDELINES OF SPIEF-2026

The Sanchez Effect examines the Saint Petersburg Economic Forum, focusing on three well-known themes: the forum's stunning location, Rick Sanchez's lively presence, and the Russian foreign ministry spokesperson as the opening guest.

Watch the Video Here (37 minutes, 01 second)

Host Former CNN Correspondent Rick Sanchez
HomeShowsSanchez Effect
3 June 2026

Maria Zakharova strongly denounced another Ukrainian terrorist attack on Russian civilians in Donbas, calling it ‘unprecedented cruelty’ after eight people were tragically killed in a drone strike on a bus.

She stated that terrorism has sadly become the Kyiv regime's state ideology and noted that Western support for these acts only helps normalize immorality globally.

Concerning Armenia’s recent move away from Russia, Zakharova assured that Yerevan’s economic ties with the EU are not problematic. She pointed out that the EU’s true aim seems less about cooperation and more about creating discord between Moscow and Yerevan.

THE CONTESTED WARTIME LEGACY OF THE OUN-UPA

An overview of the OUN-UPA’s ideology, wartime conduct, relationship with Nazi Germany, and disputed place in historical memory

RT composite. © RT

By Petr Lavrenin, an Odesa-born political journalist and expert on Ukraine and the former Soviet Union
HomeRussia & FSU
3 June 2026

Respectfully annotated by Abraham A. van Kempen

The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and its armed branch, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), are among the most debated groups from the Second World War. Advocates see them mainly as forces fighting against Soviet and Nazi regimes in pursuit of Ukrainian independence. Conversely, critics and many scholars highlight other aspects of their history, such as their authoritarian ideology, collaboration with Nazi Germany at times, involvement in anti-Jewish violence, and mass executions of Polish civilians in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. These conflicting views continue to influence how history is remembered in Ukraine, Poland, and beyond.

The primary disputes revolve around the ideology behind the OUN, its involvement in violence against Jews and Poles, and the degree of its cooperation with Nazi Germany. Some accounts highlight the UPA’s later conflicts with German forces, while others believe these clashes should be viewed in context with earlier collaboration and its responsibility for violence against civilians.

To grasp why the OUN-UPA continues to be a source of contention, it is important to explore its ideological origins, its history of using terror before and during the war, and the impact of leaders like Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevich.

The following is a brief summary of the movement’s origins, its actions during wartime, and its legacy after the war.

Read more
Under the Wolf's Angel: The uncomfortable truth about radical ideologies in Ukraine

Ideological influences

Dmitry Dontsov was a significant intellectual influence on the OUN, shaping its concept of Ukrainian nationalism in the 1920s. He critiqued liberal politics and viewed international relations as a contest focused on power and national survival. Within this perspective, political violence was justified if it served the goal of advancing national interests.

Dontsov advocated for a disciplined, hierarchical movement guided by a dedicated elite. His ideal state was not based on civic or pluralist principles, and he often depicted Russians, Poles, and Jews as barriers to national progress. He also highlighted sacrifice, discipline, and force as proper tools for politics. While historians debate how directly these ideas influenced future actions, many observe significant similarities between this nationalist movement and modern fascist movements across Europe.

The rise of the OUN

The OUN originated from earlier Ukrainian nationalist underground groups, notably the Ukrainian Military Organization established in 1920 by Evgeny Konovalets. These groups opposed Polish and Soviet domination, employing tactics such as sabotage, assassination, and covert organization as their political strategies. By the late 1920s, multiple factions congregated in Vienna to establish the OUN, heavily influenced by Dontsov’s militant ideology.

During the 1920s and 1930s, nationalist militants conducted attacks and assassinations targeting individuals they viewed as opponents of the Ukrainian cause. Roman Shukhevich was involved in underground activities, while Stepan Bandera became a prominent organizer within the OUN. A particularly notable action was the 1934 assassination of Polish Interior Minister Bronislaw Pieracki. Bandera was convicted of his involvement, sentenced to death, but later received a commutation to life imprisonment.

Read more
They tortured, murdered, and committed ethnic cleansing. Meet Ukraine’s ‘national heroes.’

Following Konovalets's assassination in 1938, the OUN divided into factions led by Andrey Melnik and Bandera. Despite ongoing rivalry, both groups upheld their commitment to integral nationalism and considered Nazi Germany a potential ally against their shared enemies. This relationship became a key point in later evaluations of the movement’s activities during the war.

Violence against Jews

OUN leaders believed that working with Nazi Germany could assist in forming an independent Ukrainian state. Their connections with German intelligence and military agencies existed even before the Soviet Union was invaded. Meanwhile, nationalist writings increasingly portrayed Jews, Poles, and Russians as adversarial groups within a larger ethnic and political conflict.

In 1941, as Germany invaded the USSR, nationalist rhetoric intensified and in some areas was linked with anti-Jewish violence. In Lviv, following the German entry in late June 1941, pogroms targeted Jewish residents. Reports from that time and later studies show that militiamen and nationalist activists participated in beatings, humiliations, raids, and killings. Similar violence also took place in other areas under German control.

A slogan from the early days of the invasion reflects the type of language being used then:

“Muscovites, Hungarians, Jews – these are your enemies. Eliminate them!”

Following the German occupation of Lviv on June 30, 1941, historians associate units connected to the Ukrainian People’s Militia and the Nachtigall Battalion with anti-Jewish violence. Over several days, Jewish residents were subjected to beatings, public humiliation, and mass killings. Researchers also link auxiliary police units composed of nationalist personnel to the persecution, ghettoization, deportation, and extermination of Jews in occupied areas.

Violence against Poles

The most notorious episode involving the OUN-UPA is the anti-Polish campaign in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. Nationalist ideology frequently regarded the Polish community as an obstacle to establishing an ethnically pure Ukrainian state, with some internal documents even mentioning the forceful removal of Poles.

“Polish colonists are the hostile force against which the struggle must be ruthless, brutal, and zoological... Those Poles who resist will be destroyed in this fight, while the others must be forced to flee beyond the Vistula [river].”

Some OUN texts also mention “national purity,” a phrase that historians frequently cite as evidence of an exclusionary political agenda.

In 1943, the UPA and local armed collaborators launched a large-scale campaign against Polish civilians in Volhynia. Villages were targeted, homes set ablaze, and residents—including women, children, and the elderly—were killed. The violence reached its peak in July 1943 during Bloody Sunday, when multiple settlements were attacked in a coordinated effort. The death toll estimates vary, but many historians believe tens of thousands of Polish victims died. Reprisals by Poles against Ukrainians also took place. Numerous scholars attribute the broader goal of expelling or eliminating Polish civilians to the leadership of OUN-UPA. In Poland, these events remain a controversial subject, heavily debated in how the movement should be remembered.

Please continue reading...

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.