The Evangelical Pope | Stewards of Communication for Global Enrichment

Each week we let Saint Pope John Paul II share meaningful signposts to spark socio-economic resolves through justice and righteousness combined with mercy and compassion; in short, love.

               ¹⁷ This is what the LORD says—
               Your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel:
               “I am the LORD your God,
               Who teaches you what is best for you,
               Who directs you in the way you should go.

               __ Isaiah 48:17 (New International Version)

The Vatican -- 23 May 2004 | Media outlets have a substantial positive impact on promoting healthy human and family values, which can help renew society. Given their significant influence on shaping ideas and behavior, professional communicators must acknowledge their moral duty to use wisdom, sound judgment, and fairness when presenting issues.

The media are a familiar presence in many homes, especially on this World Communications Day. I urge communicators and families to recognize their privilege and take on their responsibility. Those in communication are stewards of a spiritual power that enriches humanity (Address to Communications Specialists, Los Angeles, September 15, 1987, p. 8).

Families should see media as a source of support, encouragement, and inspiration as they live in community, teach moral values, and promote solidarity, freedom, and peace.

Excerpted from:

MESSAGE OF THE HOLY FATHER JOHN PAUL II FOR THE 38th WORLD COMMUNICATIONS DAY, "The Media and the Family: A Risk and a Richness,” Sunday, 23 May 2004

https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul- ii/en/messages/communications/ documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_20040124_world-communications-day.html

EDITORIAL | Reflecting on Spiritual Responsibility and Global Enrichment

By Abraham A. van Kempen
Senior Editor
21 September 2025

In the ever-changing world of communications, whether you're in journalism, broadcasting, digital media, or public relations, there's a special and universal purpose that calls us all. The idea that everyone in this field is a "steward and administrator of an immense spiritual power that belongs to the patrimony of mankind and is meant to enrich the whole of the human community" invites us to look beyond just technical skills or commercial gains. It reminds us to be mindful of our deeper responsibilities and to dedicate ourselves to serving the greater good.

Spiritual Power as a Shared Patrimony

Communication isn’t just about sharing information; it’s about building connections, exchanging ideas, and fostering mutual understanding. The term "spiritual power" underscores how media and communication can move hearts, shape cultures, and encourage empathy across differences. This power is a collective gift—belonging to all of humanity, not just one group or nation. Those working in this field see themselves as stewards of this wonderful gift, meant to benefit everyone, not for personal gain.

Stewardship: Ethical and Moral Dimensions

Being a steward means taking responsibility for how we care for and use something valuable. In communication, this involves maintaining honest, fair, and respectful interactions that honor everyone's dignity. Those who manage this spiritual power should steer clear of temptations like sensationalism, misinformation, and creating division. Instead, their role is to encourage open dialogue, foster understanding, and promote peace. Their efforts can do more than inform—they can inspire, heal, and unite people.

Enriching the Human Community

The ultimate goal of communication, as this vision suggests, is to unite the entire human community and enrich it. This can happen in many wonderful ways—through education, cultural exchanges, standing up for justice, and making sure everyone’s voice can be heard. When we see ourselves as stewards of communication, we help create a world that’s more informed, kinder, and united. The positive effects of this work extend far beyond the present moment, helping to shape a brighter future for generations to come.

Conclusion

People working in the communications field hold a unique position at the intersection of technology, culture, and society. When they view themselves as caretakers of a shared spiritual power, they can transform their everyday work into a meaningful mission that not only disseminates knowledge but also uplifts spirits and brings people closer together. It’s both a challenge and a rewarding opportunity to utilize communication tools and platforms to promote truth, unity, and the growth of the human spirit worldwide.

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

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 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 full 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.

HOW TO STOP ISRAEL FROM STARVING GAZA

September 16, 2025
Source: Al-Jazeera
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2025/9/4/how-to-stop-israel-from-starving-gaza

By Jeffrey Sachs and Sybil Fares
Published September 4, 2025

Washington shields Israel as it commits the darkest of crimes, but the family of nations still has the means and duty to act.

READ MORE

EDITOR’S PERSONAL NOTE | Recent Ophthalmology Update and Critical Treatment Decisions

I write to right wrongs and help expand horizons. I’m sharing my personal struggle so that you and those you care about won’t have to go through a ‘hell’ I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemies.

On Wednesday, September 17, 2025, my ophthalmologist broke the news that he had neglected to disclose an alarming fact, withholding material information about the implanted lenses in both of my eyes. If left untreated, permanent blindness is imminent. The emotional and physical impact of this news was overwhelming, the most shocking encounter of my life.

For the first time, my doctor revealed that these lenses typically disintegrate after around five to six months if they’re not ‘locked in’ by two UVV laser treatments. I've already gone over the five-month mark. The lens implants took place earlier this year: the right eye on March 27 and the left eye on April 3. To ensure the lenses are locked in place before they disintegrate, I need four additional UVV laser procedures –two for each eye. My ophthalmologist brought in the manufacturer’s representative to highlight the risks through a “show-and-tell” video, reinforcing the ophthalmologist’s long-overdue disclosure.

Once I realized this, I confronted them about their ethical and legal obligation to disclose material information. I asked why this key detail wasn't mentioned during the October 2024 and March 2025 meetings or included in their literature and brochures. Had the ophthalmologist been more upfront earlier, or if the manufacturer had included this information in their promotional materials, I would have refused to have these high-priced and high-risk lenses implanted in my eyes.

Withholding Material Information

It became clear that both my ophthalmologist and the manufacturer had withheld crucial information from me—information essential to understanding the unavoidable risk of the blindness I now face. I was told that unless I signed a waiver releasing the ophthalmologist and manufacturer from all liabilities and agreed to immediate surgery, my chances of losing my sight would increase each day. They also emphasized that if the surgeries resulted in permanent blindness, I would be fully responsible for their negligence, medical malpractice, and failure to disclose important information. In other words, if push comes to shove, they’ll drop me like a hot potato – take the money and run. Unconscionable!

Risks Associated with Implanted Lenses

My ophthalmologist and the manufacturer’s rep emphasize that the protective coating on my lenses is now rapidly deteriorating. If it disintegrates, my vision will be obstructed by a film of broken pieces, severely impairing my sight, essentially like being blind.

Once the lenses start to break down, the only option is to remove them and replace them – a process known as de-plantation. However, that surgery carries risks, such as retinal detachment or permanent loss of vision. I'm nearing the point of no return where it's almost too late to take action. My ophthalmologist insists he locks the lenses now, but there's a catch. How can I be assured that he won’t trigger another Cystoid Macular Edema?

I'm facing overlapping health issues that impact the UVV laser treatments, which could cause another episode of Cystoid Macular Edema—a cyst in the center of my retina. Usually, these cysts can heal within four months, but I don't have that much time, and the cyst in my left eye hasn't healed fully yet. To make matters worse, I'm also dealing with blepharitis (which I’ve never had before) and autoimmune (psoriasis flare-ups) issues. My allergist, rheumatologist, and dermatologist have strongly advised against undergoing any UVV treatments until my blepharitis and psoriasis are entirely under control.

Racing Against Time

It's essential to carefully weigh all available options to achieve the best possible outcome. On my behalf, my team of fact checkers consulted another ophthalmologist-surgeon, certified by the same lens manufacturer, who provided a second opinion: I can wait up to six more weeks, but the lenses need to be sealed and locked by no later than eight weeks from now.