American Women Suck

Zelensky’s power is contingent on the war continuing, so he’s trying his best to derail or sour any negotiation that could lead to peace On August 14, 2025, Russian officials reported Ukrainian drone strikes on the border city of Belgorod and the southern capital Rostov-on-Don, killing and injuring civilians. Rostov saw an apartment building struck, with over a dozen casualties; in Belgorod, three civilians were hurt when a drone hit a car downtown. This came two days after the Russian Ministry of Defence (MoD) alleged that Ukrainian forces were preparing a false-flag provocation in the Kharkov region, complete with pre-positioned journalists – supposedly to shape a narrative blaming Moscow. These incidents are not isolated. They fit into a larger operational and political pattern: each time high-level talks are scheduled Kiev steps up attacks on Russian regions. The results are the same: civilian deaths, destruction of civilian infrastructure, and an attempt to create a cloud over the diplomatic process. The same happened in late May and early June 2025, just before the second round of Russia–Ukraine talks in Istanbul, when two bridges in Russian territory were blown up. The attacks killed seven civilians and injured over seventy more. In Moscow’s interpretation, the timing was too precise to be coincidence – it was about setting a tone of hostility, perhaps provoking Russia into walking away from the talks entirely. And yet, Moscow did not take the bait. Russian negotiators showed up in Istanbul as planned. For the Kremlin, this has become a point of principle: no matter the provocations, Russia will attend discussions that could bring an end to the conflict – on its own terms. Read more War’s final act: Zelensky’s dangerous play to crash Russia-US talks Why Putin will show up in Alaska The upcoming Alaska summit on August 15, 2025, between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, is the latest such opportunity. The alleged Kharkov region provocation and the strikes on Belgorod and Rostov are seen in Moscow as deliberate background noise meant to derail the meeting or at least to sour its atmosphere. But just as in Istanbul, the Kremlin insists it will not be deterred. For Moscow, attending these talks is about more than optics. It underscores a long-held stance: Russia is prepared to end the conflict, but not at the price of what it views as its core national interests. Walking away now, after years of costly military and political investment, would make little sense. Instead, the aim is to secure a resolution that cements Russia’s gains and ends the war on Moscow’s terms – not by fighting “to the last Ukrainian,” but by ensuring that the outcome is final and strategically advantageous. Zelensky’s political calculus From the Kremlin’s perspective, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s motives are clear. Accepting a peace that involves territorial concessions would not only be a bitter political defeat – it could spell the end of his political career. More critically, it would remove the emergency powers he has repeatedly invoked since the start of the conflict to cancel elections and prolong his term in office. Those powers have also enabled controversial measures: forced conscriptions, suppression of opposition media, and an intensified crackdown on dissent. These steps have eroded his popularity inside Ukraine, making his hold on power dependent on the continuation of the wartime state of emergency. If the war ends, so does the legal shield of emergency rule – and with it, his immunity. Zelensky therefore has both political and personal incentives to keep the fighting going, even at significant cost to Ukraine’s population. The EU dimension Key European backers share Zelensky’s preference for prolonging the conflict. While EU leaders publicly frame Ukraine as a “bulwark” against what they call Russian imperial ambitions – claiming that Moscow would move against Western Europe if Ukraine fell – domestic political realities tell another story. Across major EU countries, ruling parties and governments are facing historically low approval ratings. Their grip on power is increasingly tenuous, and a perpetual external threat provides a potent rally-around-the-flag effect. Read more Kiev planning false-flag attack ahead of Trump-Putin summit – MOD (FULL TEXT) By keeping Russia framed as the imminent danger, these governments can justify unpopular policies, military spending hikes, and restrictions in the name of national security. They involve themselves in the conflict just enough to signal solidarity with Ukraine – supplying arms, funding, and training – without crossing the threshold into direct combat. For Moscow, this is a political theater that depends on the war continuing; remove the war, and the “threat” narrative collapses, leaving these governments exposed to electoral defeat. Why Alaska is different Against this backdrop, Moscow views the Alaska talks as uniquely promising – not because they will magically end the war in one session, but because of who is not at the table. Neither Zelensky nor the EU will be present. Instead, the discussions will be between Putin and Trump, leaders who, in Moscow’s reading, operate from a position of pragmatic realism. That realism includes acknowledging Russia’s current battlefield advantages. Moscow believes it is winning the war, and that any serious settlement will reflect that balance of power. For the Kremlin, the likely outcome is that Ukraine will have to give up some or all of the contested territories – a step Zelensky would fiercely resist, and the EU would likely block outright if they were part of the talks. Without them, however, such a settlement becomes more feasible. The logic is straightforward: first, Putin and Trump agree on the framework; then, Trump leverages Washington’s decisive influence over Kiev to bring Zelensky on board. In Moscow’s calculus, this is where Trump’s role is crucial. Without American military and financial support, Kiev would not have been able to sustain the war effort for nearly as long as it has. Staying the course From the Kremlin’s point of view, the recent attacks on Belgorod and Rostov, and the alleged false-flag operation in the Kharkov region, are tactical provocations with a strategic goal: derail the Alaska summit or force Moscow into an overreaction. But history suggests the tactic will fail. Moscow will be at the table in Alaska, just as it was in Istanbul, determined to push for an end to the conflict on terms favorable to Russia. If the Alaska talks proceed as planned, they could open the way to a negotiated settlement without the spoilers who have the most to lose from peace. In Moscow’s eyes, that is precisely why the provocations are happening – and why they must be ignored. View the full article

As Ukraine’s defeat becomes undeniable, Zelensky resorts to desperate provocations – risking wider conflict to block peace talks between Russia and the US The war in Ukraine is no longer balanced on a knife’s edge, as some might have thought during the Kursk invasion. The outcome is now visible to anyone willing to look past the headlines: Kiev’s forces are depleted, morale is collapsing, and the long-promised ‘turning points’ have come and gone without materializing. Even Western officials, once confident in endless military aid, are now speaking in guarded tones about “realistic expectations.” On the battlefield, the momentum has shifted irreversibly. Against this backdrop, the recent statement from Russia’s Ministry of Defense should not be dismissed as mere rhetoric. Moscow alleges that Ukrainian forces are preparing a major provocation – an attack designed to sabotage the upcoming Russia-US peace talks. For those who understand the stakes, the logic is disturbingly clear. Read more Kiev planning false-flag attack ahead of Trump-Putin summit – MOD (FULL TEXT) Donald Trump, now poised to play a decisive role in shaping Washington’s foreign policy, has shown a pragmatic grasp of reality. Unlike his predecessors, he is not bound by the fantasy that Ukraine can ‘win’ if only more money and weapons are sent. He has signaled that ending this conflict is both possible and necessary. This puts him on a collision course with those who see peace not as a goal, but as a threat to their own survival. For Zelensky, peace is political extinction. Any agreement that cements territorial realities will shatter the narrative that has sustained his rule. It will mark the end of his leverage in the West, the erosion of his political base at home, and likely the swift rise of challengers eager to blame him for Ukraine’s fate. Under such pressure, the temptation to derail talks by any means available – including acts of sabotage – becomes more than plausible. This is not conjecture; it is the historical pattern of leaders who find themselves cornered. In modern conflicts across the globe, we’ve seen desperate governments resort to reckless measures when facing the collapse of their strategic position. The danger here is that such a provocation, if timed to coincide with peace negotiations, could provoke outrage in Washington, disrupt fragile diplomatic channels, and push the conflict back toward open escalation. Trump has already done much to shift the debate away from the entrenched ‘forever war’ mindset. He has taken political risks to challenge the military-industrial inertia that thrives on endless conflict. But now, perhaps more than ever, he will need to remain steady. The coming weeks will test his ability to see through manipulations and to resist being drawn into the agendas of those who profit from instability. Peace is within reach – but it will not survive if the world falls for one last, desperate trick from a regime with nothing left to lose. View the full article

Evading diplomacy is a Western folly that Russia has no reason to imitate The problem with the future is that it is both unpredictable and inescapable. You can never know with certainty what tomorrow will bring, but you must prepare for it nonetheless. This may seem trivial. And yet it remains a great challenge. Consider, for instance, current international reactions to the scheduled summit between Russian president Vladimir Putin and US president Donald Trump. The announcement of the meeting, later specified to take place in Alaska on 15 August, was a surprise. But then again, not really. Viewed against the background of Trump’s longstanding signaling of respect for Russia, as well as an interest in normalizing the relationship between Moscow and Washington, it was actually the culmination of a sometimes messy but real trend. But within the short-term context of a recent American turn against Russia, it was yet another proof that Trump can be hard to predict – trends can tell you only so much. While some observers believed the latest American zig to be the last, others – full disclosure: this one included – argued (and, frankly, hoped) that another zag was possible. And here we are. It is true that RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan dares not predict the summit’s outcome or even whether it will really take place. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov has warned that we are still far from a new détente. Yet there is no denying that, at least for now, we are not where we were during the preceding Biden administration either. Namely, in a hopeless dead end of an escalating yet failing Western proxy war, flanked by a literal anti-diplomacy; that is, an obstinate refusal to communicate that was perversely elevated to the rank of policy. Read more Russia reveals expectations for Putin-Trump summit For now, it is impossible to predict where we will go from here. Once – and if – the summit in Alaska takes place, and hopefully a follow-up meeting in Russia as well, will we finally have left the bloody and dangerous stagnation that was produced by, firstly, the West permitting Kiev to sabotage the 2015 Minsk II Agreement, then the stonewalling of Moscow’s last-chance negotiation offer of late 2021, and finally the West’s nixing of an almost-peace in April 2022? Or will we be disappointed and face more of the same: an ongoing Western proxy war against Russia through Ukraine, or even worse? One thing is clear, however. An end to the fighting and a halfway decent settlement would be very good news not only for Ukraine but also for the rest of the world, including a NATO-EU Europe that currently is, or at least pretends to be, ready to spoil a quick end to the slaughter next door. Ukrainian and Russian lives would be saved; hopefully for a better future. The still real – if, by comparison with peak Biden, already reduced – danger of escalation into a regional or even global war would be further diminished. And, since this has also been a very costly sanctions war, there would be substantial economic benefits. Ukraine in particular, of course, would have the opportunity to rebuild, especially if its domestic politics took a postwar turn for the better, leaving the ultra-corrupt, authoritarian, and maniacal Zelensky regime behind. Against this background, it is counterintuitive and depressing but not really surprising that many Western ‘friends of Ukraine’ are greatly disturbed if not positively panicked by such prospects. A Ukraine where men are no longer hunted down by forced-mobilization squads to die or be traumatized – physically and mentally – in a militarily pointless war provoked by a failed Western strategy of using Ukraine to take Russia down a notch? A Ukraine that could actually recover from this devastating if perfectly avoidable catastrophe of hubris and badly misplaced trust? Read more Alaska meeting, Ukraine conflict and trade with Russia: Key takeaways from Trump’s Q&A Many of Ukraine’s friends-from-hell, especially in NATO-EU Europe, seem to still find it hard to accept such a possibility. Instead of seriously and honestly exploring not only the now inevitable costs of peace but also its enormous benefits, or facing the immense additional human costs of fighting on, they can’t stop issuing stale warnings about the obvious fact that those who lose a war – that is, the West and, tragically, Ukraine – cannot expect quite the same outcome as those who win it. Would it not, perhaps, then have been best to avoid that war altogether? What was the reason, for instance, for not closing that famous ‘open door’ into NATO that has no basis in the NATO treaty and through which Ukraine would never have walked anyway? But these, of course, are questions that precisely those who did their worst to miss one exit ramp after the other while others bled will never candidly ask themselves. That would be far too painful for the heroes of Western pop Russophobia and Cold War re-enacting. And then there are the many whose perma-grudge against Russia and Putin personally is only rivalled by their bitter resentment at having to live in a Trump 2.0 world, when they expected to set the Centrist tone forever. They find their sad refuge in endlessly warmed-over and mind-numbingly unoriginal carping about how they are sure the American president will be duped by his Russian counterpart. That’s funny, actually, especially from Europeans. It’s after all their very own Ursula von der Leyen who has just delivered a gala performance in being, as Hungary’s Viktor Orban put it, “eaten for breakfast” at the negotiating table. By, as it happens, that same American president. Even after Trump’s once impossible electoral comeback, his full-spectrum domination of NATO clients reduced to saying “daddy,” and his complete humiliation of the EU, for some, it seems, there is no cure for underestimating Trump the politician. They will only have themselves to blame if he and Putin pull off what they can’t imagine once again: as decent an end to this war as is still possible, despite much of Europe and the Zelensky regime’s obstruction. Yet there is another kind of pessimism about the upcoming summit that is in some ways more puzzling. It usually comes from observers who are well-informed and if not sympathetic to Russia, then at least not blinded by Western propaganda. Its essence is a radical distrust of the US, and its ultimate conclusion is that Moscow, ideally, should not even try to negotiate with Washington. Read more All eyes on the Trump-Putin summit – but the US-Russia rift runs deep What makes this line of thinking more realistic than the endless complaints of the Russophobes is the fact that the US really has a long and rich record of breaking agreements and, even worse, of deliberately using negotiations and promises to prepare foul play. Indeed, perhaps the deepest root of the war in Ukraine is precisely such a policy of deception, namely America’s breaking of the perfectly real promise not to expand NATO, made repeatedly between 1990 and 1994. Against that background, these pessimists argue, any agreement with the US will be just another trap. If the conflict should end up merely frozen, they warn, it could be restarted later, while the interval could be used to attack other targets, most of all Russia’s partner China. If Trump seems to be different from his predecessors, they caution, then that is either merely for show or irrelevant because ultimately the long-term strategies of the US political establishment – consistently hostile toward Russia – will prevail. And if the US should end up abandoning direct participation in its Ukrainian proxy war, they fear, it could be kept going indirectly, namely through Washington’s belligerent European clients. This approach certainly does not lack intellectual substance or empirical evidence. In fact, its arguments amount to excellent due diligence for anyone entering into negotiations with the US. But the real question is what practical conclusions should be drawn from these warnings? Can the correct answer to that question be to avoid negotiations? But then Moscow would replicate the West’s absurd mutism as it prevailed before Trump. Yet if sensible observers agree that communication and diplomacy are always better than silence, why should Russia follow the West’s silly precedent of anti-diplomacy? Especially in view of the fact that there is one thing Moscow does not have to worry about. Unlike in some Western countries, such as Germany, Britain, and France, Russia does have a top-notch set of foreign policy professionals and institutions. Diplomacy, therefore, is not only principally good but also plays to Moscow’s strength. Read more Rockets from Russia: Inside Moscow’s deadliest arsenal yet The current Russian leadership, moreover, has been explicit, repeatedly, about its unforgiving realism concerning the whole West. Only recently, for instance, Putin has reiterated his view of the war in Ukraine as reflecting an existential Western threat to Russia. Moscow also has an empirically verifiable record of healthy skepticism in action. If its policy were one of easily accommodating the West, then we would not be where we are at all. If Moscow’s policy were one of easily accommodating the new administration under Trump, then it would long ago have concluded a disadvantageous agreement. But it has not. In reality, the upcoming summit may mark the point at which both sides, the US and Russia, understand that only serious negotiations based on the realities on the ground and detached from superficial ideological mantras can possibly succeed. And if that should not be the case, then they will fail and the war will continue. Finally, there is a fundamental difference between caution and fear. Caution enables, fear paralyzes. Precisely because the traditional challenges of negotiating with the US are so clear, there is no reason to shy away from contact. The challenge is to transform caution into practically applicable conditions. Will the US, for instance, continue to share intelligence with Ukraine, directly or indirectly (through its European clients)? What about US officers – whether through NATO or otherwise – and their participation in the war against Russia? And the spies? Can and will Trump tell the CIA to drop its Ukrainian cut-outs and stop contributing to attacks on and inside Russia? If the US really intends to keep selling weapons to Europe so that they can then be handed on to Ukraine, how can that be squared with trying to bring about peace? It is possible that once tested by such questions (and a lot of them), the American side will expose its lack of commitment. Yet no one can rule out that a more useful outcome might ensue. In fact, the summit plan itself may be a sign that some of these issues have been broached already. In such a situation, the rational approach is to try, while keeping up one’s guard. Given its post-Soviet experiences and how it has processed them (among other things by striking back militarily), there is no reason to believe that the Russian leadership is not capable of pursuing such a strategy. Those eager to see Russia hold its own against the West and in particular the US should consider that it is Moscow that defines Russian national interest. Depending on a concrete analysis of specific circumstances at this or a future moment, even an imperfect agreement made with a US that cannot be trusted may serve these interests. And those who rightly favor multipolarity should recall that a Russia which keeps fighting in a Ukraine War handed over to the Europeans cannot play the same international role as one that is finally free of that burden. View the full article

Washington’s next geopolitical plays in the post-Soviet space – from the Caucasus to Transnistria – threaten to widen the East-West divide All eyes may be on the scheduled meeting between US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, set for August 15 in Alaska – which is likely to be critical for Ukraine. But fears are growing that tensions between Russia and the West are far from resolved. Recently, with American “mediation” – if not outright pressure – Armenia and Azerbaijan signed a preliminary peace agreement that went largely unnoticed in Greece. In reality, it marks Armenia’s official capitulation after its defeats in recent wars with Azerbaijan. The consensus is that the big winner is Türkiye, which has been openly backing Azerbaijan – and still is. The peace deal, signed in Washington on August 8 with the help of Trump, is widely seen as a geopolitical win for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Ankara, which supported Baku in its “blitzkrieg” in Karabakh, stands to gain the most – first and foremost by securing a direct land link to Azerbaijan via Nakhichevan. That said, the geopolitical and geoeconomic benefits for American interests are hardly smaller. New ‘Kosovos’ in the making Following the US-Turkish-engineered deal in the Caucasus, observers expect Washington to push similar plans elsewhere in the post-Soviet space. Georgia and Moldova top the list of likely next targets. Both countries have their own “thorny” territories – self-declared autonomous regions, Kosovo-style, lacking international recognition and hosting Russian military bases. Kosovo itself, of course, is recognized by most of the West, though it technically still lacks full independent-state status. Notably, Greece, Romania, Cyprus, and Spain refuse to recognize it, while Serbia still considers it part of its territory. Risky scenarios for war The hottest flashpoint inside Europe – especially with elections in Moldova this September – is Chisinau’s ambition to “reintegrate” Transnistria. Read more Elected? That’s cute. Now go to jail In recent years, disputed elections have brought pro-Western governments and a pro-Western president to power in Moldova. Now, at least on paper, Chisinau could call on Kiev for help and attempt a military solution to the Transnistria question. No one can rule out such a move – especially with Russian forces largely tied down in the Ukraine conflict. Parliamentary elections are adding to the tension. The country is split almost evenly for and against pro-Western President Maia Sandu and her PAS party. A new military adventure could serve as the perfect pretext to shift the domestic political climate – and to escalate the broader standoff between Europe and Russia. Greece – Romania – Türkiye If another European war were to break out – this time over Moldova – NATO member Romania would almost certainly side with Chisinau. As Romania’s ally, Greece would face a hard choice: back Bucharest (and by extension, Moldova) or keep its distance from another European conflict? In the case of Ukraine, Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis’s government took no such distance – instead, openly declaring that Greece was “at war with Russia.” Whatever Athens decides will depend in part on Türkiye’s stance toward this – for now – hypothetical scenario. Ankara would likely get involved indirectly, if only to boost its geopolitical influence in the region and its standing within NATO. It has done so repeatedly in recent years – in Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, and beyond. Türkiye’s and Azerbaijan’s success in Karabakh – at the expense of Armenia and Russia – has emboldened Ankara in other arenas of foreign policy. Erdogan has repeatedly stated that Türkiye will not give up “a single inch of land once Turkish soldiers have set foot on it.” History suggests those are not idle words. Washington’s blueprint The United States is clearly playing a bigger game across the post-Soviet geopolitical chessboard. By closing the chapter on the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict in the Caucasus – a confrontation dating back to the collapse of the USSR – Washington has engineered a settlement tailored to its own strategic script. Next up are other “frozen conflicts” in the former Soviet Union. Read more Rockets from Russia: Inside Moscow’s deadliest arsenal yet Georgia wants to peacefully “reintegrate” Abkhazia and South Ossetia, two breakaway territories in the Caucasus that split from Tbilisi after bloody conflicts – the first in the early 1990s, the second in 2008. They are, in effect, the “Kosovos” of the Caucasus. In Moldova, the president and government have made deepening ties with the US and NATO a top priority. Like Kiev in years past, Chisinau sees this as its ticket to security guarantees against Moscow – and, more importantly, as its “golden opportunity” to retake Transnistria. A Karabakh-style “blitzkrieg” would be hard to pull off against territories hosting Russian military bases. But Washington doesn’t seem in a rush – even if events are moving at a dangerously fast pace. NATO in the wings? It hasn’t gone unnoticed that NATO military exercises have included scenarios simulating a crisis in these “Kosovos” of Georgia and Moldova. One telling example: Agile Spirit 2025, the 12th such exercise hosted jointly with Georgia, ran from July 25 to August 6 with participants from 13 countries – including the US, Türkiye, Poland, Germany, Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Lithuania, and Ukraine – not counting observer nations. Adding fuel to the speculation, online rumors claim that during joint “Fiery Shield-2025” drills with the US and Romania, which began August 4, Moldovan troops fired at targets depicting Russian soldiers. Military ties between Greece and Romania – and between Greece and Moldova – have been strengthening. On June 26, 2025, Greece’s chief of the Hellenic National Defense General Staff, Dimitris Choupis, awarded Moldova’s deputy chief of the General Staff, Brigadier General Sergiu Cirimpei, the Medal of Merit and Honor. Diplomatic contacts are also on the rise. Deputy Foreign Minister Charis Theocharis recently visited Moldova, adding to a string of earlier meetings. Finally, the former US ambassador to Athens and later Biden-era deputy secretary of state for energy, Geoffrey Pyatt, has repeatedly emphasized the “Vertical Gas Corridor” – a network that would allow bidirectional flows from south to north, specifically from Greece through Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Moldova, and Ukraine, via both existing and new European natural gas and LNG infrastructure. View the full article

Two high-ranking gravediggers share their Reddit-level advice on resuscitating the bloc In the world of Western mainstream media political commentary, not everything is fun. In fact, mostly, things are grimly serious, the sort of seriousness that comes with solid, never-questioned self-importance. But sometimes that professional pomposity reaches a tipping point when strenuous efforts to be very earnest involuntarily produce priceless outcomes. That is the case with a recent elephantine op-ed that has surfaced in Politico under the illustrious names of Gabrielius Landsbergis and Garry Kasparov. Its one, relentlessly reiterated argument is touchingly simple as well as out of touch with the world we really live in: The EU, this fantasy goes, is too consensual, peaceful, and nice (tell the migrants drowning in the Mediterranean or traded as slaves in Libya with de facto EU support). It must become tough, decisive, and fierce, with plenty of arms and gritty oomph. Because otherwise it won’t survive in a world shaped by the big bad “global network of authoritarians” (I won’t enumerate them here; it’s just the usual suspects of every Centrist’s fever dream) and, for good measure, terrorists, too. (Surely, the latter, at least, do no longer include Mr. Jolani, the former leader of the Al Qaeda franchise in Syria who has recently been reborn miraculously as an avatar of diversity now going by Al Sharaa?) Landsbergis is a political nepo baby, enthusiastic NATO sectarian, and the former foreign minister of Lithuania. While popular at international meet-ups of adult – so they say at least – Europeans calling US presidents “daddy,” a 2023 poll back home in Lithuania saw him fail to breach the 2-percent threshold. If that sounds like perfect material for a blind date with Kamala Harris, Landsbergis certainly has time on his hands after losing his constituency last year and announcing he wanted to take a break from politics. No less, it seems, than his voters clearly needed a break from him. Read more Russian chess legend linked to South Sudan coup plot – Bloomberg Kasparov is, by comparison with Landsbergis, at least an original phenomenon, the idiot savant of chess. A former world champion, he has now spent decades proving that one can be a chess genius and a perfect dunce in every other respect, especially politics. Since he has combined this obstinate – and almost brave, if that is the word – playing to his worst weaknesses with an equally stubborn obsession with going after Russia and its leadership he still has his fans, in the West. Together, Landsbergis and Kasparov have signed off on a gargantuan effort to produce another Long Telegram. Clearly, they are driven by a comically misplaced ambition to best American diplomat and Ur-Cold Warrior’ George Kennan – a complex, dour, and vain man, but certainly no fool, as his later fall from official grace and opposition to daft Western expansionism showed – who issued the renowned call to arms against the Soviet Union in 1946/47. What early Cold War Kennan did for the US – and by extension, its postwar empire – Kasparov and Landsbergis would very much, desperately like to be able to do for the EU. And they have striven mightily. Yet they have strutted into the classical trap of the epigone: think of their imitation clarion call as a mix between embarrassingly poor-but-eager fan fiction, a bizarre alternative history of the EU, and a rambling and rather dull party speech masquerading as an op-ed. Yes, that is how bad it is. Indeed, the screed by the Lithuanian has-been and the chess master who went full blockhead is so self-defeatingly shoddy that it’s difficult to know where to begin. So, for starters, just for a rough sense of what we are dealing with, this is a text asserting the EU systematically promotes politicians who are “excellent negotiators.” Such as Ursula von der Leyen, we must assume? The one really in charge (although no one can coherently explain why) in the EU who has just “negotiated” a grotesquely disadvantageous anti-”deal” – really an unconditional surrender without a fight – with the US, built on the elegantly simple principle “You get everything, we get nothing, and we’ll pay you for that as well.” Read more EU to wait years to replace Patriots sent to Ukraine – NATO This claim about the EU producing excellence at the negotiating table, is all the more curious (Is “curious” the word? Would “symptomatic” be better?) since Landsbergis and Kasparov do mention that recent fiasco at Trump’s Turnberry Golf Berghof as well. Somehow, between the former foreign minister and the former chess champion, no one noticed the contradiction. But then again, these are the same bright minds who believe that the EU is a beacon of “free trade.” In reality, one purpose the EU was built for – apart from suppressing national sovereignty and whatever faint elements of democracy postwar European states actually have featured – was to not allow for free trade. In reality, the EU permits something resembling free trade only when it is perceived as advantageous to its own agenda or that of specific states and pressure groups – or, of course, when it is forced to do so. In all other cases, it practices a whole plethora of protectionist policies, from the classic Common Agricultural Policy to so-called anti-dumping rules that it uses as geopolitical weapons. It also runs an enormous redistribution scheme between its member nations, something that Landsbergis from Lithuania certainly knows from its most cushy side. While not directly a trade issue, that, too, is far from the pure doctrine of free markets and invisible hands. Finally, it was, obviously, precisely the EU’s – not Russia’s – refusal to even consider “free” trade for Ukraine with both itself and Russia that played a key role in triggering the original Ukraine crisis of 2013/14. More examples of painfully under-informed and under-thought (both polite expressions) statements could be added. But why torment ourselves? You get the gist: Details – though by no means minor – are not Landsbergis and Kasparov’s forte. What about the grand argument then? It is not merely ignorant but positively toxic. For Kasparov and Landsbergis, it is certain that the EU and “Putin’s Russia” can never “peacefully coexist,” and while hedging a tiny bit with regard to China, they say essentially the same about the bloc's relationship with Beijing as well. As card-carrying members of the “daddy”-saying club, they let the US off lightly, bending themselves into submissive pretzels by, on one side, noting that it is abandoning its EU vassals and, on the other, saying that that’s okay, daddy, and, anyhow, we Europeans need tough love. Read more Orban points to main hurdle in ending Ukraine conflict In effect, they paint a picture of an EU that can rely only on itself. And that is the madness of their article: They are right – even if cowardly – about the fact that it cannot rely on the US. But they are wrong, in fact, deluded, about two key things. First, they are dishonest about “going it alone.” Because they are, of course, not ready to be consistent and encourage the EU to, in that case, actually put its own interests above the demands of the US. The obvious test here is Ukraine. If Landsbergis and Kasparov were ready to face the fact that the EU must end, instead of increase, its support for Kiev, then one could take them seriously to an extent. But the opposite is the case. Second, there is no need to “go it alone,” and, in fact, there is no such option. If Kasparov and Landsbergis could free themselves for a moment from their ideological obsessions, they would easily realize that the way forward for the EU in a world where the US has become an even more damaging “friend” than before is to seek normal relationships with others, in particular with China and Russia. In terms of both security and economics, these are the relationships that would allow the EU to perhaps escape decline. Yet driven by provincial phobias and petty personal grudges, Kasparov and Landsbergis miss the obvious. What is profoundly disturbing about their rant is not that it exists: someone will always be full enough of themselves to produce flimsy, atrocious ideas and mistake them for advice to share. Yet in a halfway normal environment, such things would stay on Reddit. That they are treated as worthy of a mainstream platform is a sign that, indeed, the EU has severe problems and needs radical change. Just not along the lines suggested by Landsbergis and Kasparov. View the full article

Yesterday’s empire was built on spice, slaves, and silver. Today’s empire runs on metadata The new colonial frontier isn’t restricted to mineral-rich Congo or oil-drenched Venezuela. It’s digital, invisible, and everywhere. From the shantytowns of Nairobi to the barrios of Manila, smartphones hum with the raw material of the 21st century: data, all sorts of data. And just like spices and slaves once sailed westward in imperial galleons, metadata now travels quietly to the cloud servers of Palo Alto and Shenzhen. This isn’t development, it is digital extraction. Welcome to the age of AI colonialism. Big Tech firms from the US, and to a lesser extent China, have turned the Global South into a massive open-pit mine for behavioral data. Under the pretense of “AI for Development,” they build infrastructure, donate connectivity, and sponsor pilot programs but the returns flow in only one direction. Voice samples collected in Ghana become training fodder for Western voice assistants. Facial data gathered in Nigerian policing trials end up fine-tuning surveillance software in San Francisco, where western models have had protracted problems in identifying and tracking darker-skinned individuals. Agricultural data scraped from Filipino farmers help power predictive analytics for agribusiness conglomerates that will hardly benefit the Philippines. This is not a partnership. This is colonial pillage dressed in TED Talk lingo. The myth of the AI equalizer AI is marketed as a miracle equalizer that will help developing nations leapfrog into the future. We were told AI would bring precision agriculture, predictive healthcare, and smart urbanism, among numerous other utopian transformations, to even the most under-resourced regions. These Davos fantasies were regurgitated for nearly two decades. But where is the proof, the showcase project or evidence that even a fraction of those promises was delivered? The only real revolution happening is the outflow of data that were supposed to power these breakthroughs. Big Tech servers abroad now function like the colonial warehouses and banks of yore. Nor are intellectual properties of individuals and SMEs in the Developing World safe from this new brand of predation. Models, patents, ideas, and profits quietly migrate north while the Global South is left with nothing but pilot programs and PowerPoint decks. Read more ‘Democracy’ is the new colonialism Worse still, these tools are increasingly used against the very populations providing the raw material, or should I say, raw data. In Kenya, facial recognition technology was introduced as a policing tool under the guise of modernization. In practice, it has disproportionately targeted political activists who, in turn, are also resorting to AI to level the political battlefield. Who ultimately benefits from this internecine clash? Isn’t this the latest incarnation of the old imperial “divide and conquer” dictum? In India, AI-driven fraud detection systems have misclassified thousands of rural poor, unjustly cutting them off from vital government benefits. Imported algorithmic governance – often designed without regard for local context or cultural nuance – compounds the problem. Ironically, while these systems penalize the most vulnerable, India has emerged as a global hub for sophisticated online scams. It is a digital paradox where the poor are relentlessly surveilled, while the real fraudsters flourish with impunity. The biometric gold rush Nothing exemplifies AI colonialism better than the biometric boom. Tech firms, often in partnership with NGOs or global financial institutions, are racing to digitize identities across the Global South. Fingerprint scans, iris recognition, voiceprint registration have all been justified as ways to “include the unbanked” or “streamline public services.” But these efforts rarely include meaningful consent or data protection frameworks. In many cases, biometric systems have been imposed without community consultation or independent oversight. One of the most egregious examples is Worldcoin, a cryptocurrency project that offered small payments in exchange for biometric iris scans. Its largest user base? Young people in low-income African nations like Kenya who served as a convenient population to experiment on, far from the regulatory spotlights of Brussels or Washington. (Note; Worldcoin was co-founded by Sam Altman, who is also the co-founder and CEO of OpenAI, which owns ChatGPT). Read more ChatGPT maker could become world’s most valuable private tech firm – Bloomberg Once collected, this data becomes part of opaque and often proprietary AI systems whose inner workings are unknowable to the very people they affect. Local regulators are usually outgunned, underfunded or more likely, politically compromised. As a result, entire populations are subjected to surveillance and scoring regimes that they neither understand nor control. The worst culprits in this saga are not Big Tech but local politicians and “technocrats” who sell out their nations at bargain basement prices, couched under the double-speak of “best practices” and UN institutional recommendations. The new East India Companies Silicon Valley is the global epicenter of the new East India Companies. These entities are vested with quasi-sovereign power and backed by vast capital reserves, lobbying muscle, and a veneer of corporate benevolence. Where the original East India Company extracted tea and textiles, today’s digital extractors siphon up location metadata, online behavior, biometric identifiers, and social graph mappings. Consider Meta’s “Free Basics” initiative, which offered zero-rated internet access in dozens of developing countries. What seemed like a humanitarian gesture was, in reality, an attempt to create a captive ecosystem – one where Facebook was the internet. It was banned in India in 2016 but continues in other countries, quietly conditioning the digital habits of hundreds of millions of users. An expanded Meta Connectivity is now used by an estimated 300 million people across many countries, including Indonesia, Pakistan, and the Philippines. Critics warn that these platforms could be exploited for surveillance, IP harvesting, and geopolitical intelligence – often without the knowledge or consent of local populations. No one really knows what is happening. Besides, these services are not entirely free either. Pakistani users of Meta’s tech philanthropy were allegedly charged $1.9 million per month. Read more Zuckerberg unveils new ‘superintelligence lab’ The digital ‘kangani’ system India, once hailed as a rising digital superpower, now serves as a showpiece for AI neo-colonialism. Its vast IT industry, once brimming with promise, is today little more than an outsourced arm of Western conglomerates. Here is a reality check: how many individuals outside India have even one Indian-made app on their phones? There was a brief window when Indian tech seemed poised to lead. In the late ’90s, a major US tech firm allegedly commissioned two parallel teams – one in Silicon Valley, the other in an Indian city – to build a next-generation operating system to challenge Microsoft. The Indian team delivered. The US team could not. Around the same time, Indian innovators like Sabeer Bhatia gave us Hotmail, which arguably accelerated the decline of the traditional postal system. For a brief moment, the digital future seemed multipolar. That was until Big Capital arrived. Rather than reward innovation, Big Tech consolidated. Rival platforms that didn’t serve the globalist surveillance machine were quietly buried. Competition was replaced with shareholder-sanctioned “coordination,” led by the likes of BlackRock and its predecessors. From that point on, Indian IT firms would be reduced from potential innovators to mere subcontractors. And who better to manage this global digital plantation than a new class of compliant Indian C-Suite executives? These are not the disruptors. They are the taskmasters of digital “kanganis,” running the same extractive labor models once perfected by the East India Company. The dream of an “Asian Century” powered by Indian software and Chinese hardware has curdled into a reality of Chinese software, Chinese hardware, and Chinese AI. Indian tech talent has been reduced to glorified middleware, at best. For all the online chest-thumping about Indian-origin CEOs in the US, where is India’s own Jensen Huang? Where is the Indian-founded equivalent of NVIDIA, OpenAI, or even Palantir? There isn’t one. India produces engineers by the millions but owns almost none of the gilt-edged platforms. It trains the talent, but not the trillion-dollar tech. The colony codes and the empire profits. A similar theme is being played out in the US Ivy League system. Read more Elite Western universities form a corrupt and parasitic empire Resistance and reclamation But is the tide turning? Nigeria has applied brakes on foreign-backed digital ID programs. Kenya has suspended iris-scanning initiatives after massive backlash. A growing chorus of activists, lawyers, and technologists are calling for data sovereignty: the idea that countries should have the same rights over their data that they claim over oil, water, and land. A few pioneering efforts have emerged. In Brazil, the General Data Protection Law has begun to shape public discourse. In South Africa, local AI research groups are working on open, transparent models rooted in African languages and cultural norms. The African Union has even begun early-stage deliberations on a continental data governance framework. But it is an uphill fight. Western governments, in tandem with corporate lobbyists, continue to push for “data liberalization” which is nothing but a euphemism for open access-mediated exploitation. Aid packages, development grants, and tech investments are increasingly tied to these demands. It echoes the structural adjustment programs of the 1980s, where loans came with strings that hollowed out national control. Only now, the strings are coded in algorithms. The need for a new digital non-alignment The Global South needs a coordinated pushback against Silicon Valley’s digital hegemony. This would involve not just resisting predatory data practices but investment in alternative infrastructures such as sovereign cloud storage, ethical AI standards, community-owned data cooperatives, and open-source platforms. This is how a new digital non-alignment paradigm can be achieved. The Global South has been colonized before. But data, unlike oil or sugar, is invisible, infinitely replicable, and easily stolen. That makes the fight harder but also more urgent. In this new age of algorithmic empires, control over information isn’t just about profit, it is about power, freedom, and the right to define your own future. View the full article

While the Doha agreement offers hope for DR Congo devastated by conflict, it is unlikely that the ceasefire will hold in the long term On July 19 in Doha, under the watchful eyes of US and Qatari diplomats, representatives of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the March 23 Movement (M23) rebel group signed a ‘Declaration of Principles’ on a peace agreement. The document, vague in substance but rich in optics, was immediately hailed by US President Donald Trump’s camp as a diplomatic victory. Trump’s Africa adviser, Massad Boulos, said the “the most important article of the agreement is the affirmation of state control in rebel-held territories.” That of course is still to be worked out in the coming weeks. For Trump, the moment was one of those testaments to his deal-making prowess, echoing the grandstanding that accompanied his earlier, more theatrical moves in the Middle East. But behind the celebratory headlines lies a far murkier reality. DR Congo remains a country engulfed in complex, overlapping conflicts, with M23 being only one of over 120 armed groups operating in the eastern provinces. The idea that a ceasefire agreement – mediated thousands of miles away in a Qatari hotel – could magically resolve the decades-long insecurity in this mineral-rich region is at best naive, and at worst, deliberately misleading. ‘If I could just ask your name and country’ Read more Terror and torture in the ‘heart of darkness’, the world’s only private colony The involvement of the US – particularly under transactional Trump – raises troubling questions. While any effort to mediate a ceasefire in one of the world’s most neglected war zones merits scrutiny, the Trump administration’s sudden engagement in the DR Congo appears driven less by concern for human suffering or regional stability and more by economic opportunity. Trump as president has never visited Africa, including his first term. What’s more, his attitude toward the continent has been widely criticized as dismissive: In 2018 he referred to several African nations as “s**thole countries” during a White House meeting, drawing broad condemnation. Last month, during a luncheon with the presidents of Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mauritania, and Senegal at the White House, Trump grew visibly impatient as the leaders spoke. When it was Guinea-Bissau President Umaro Sissoco Embalo’s turn, Trump interrupted with: “Maybe we’re gonna have to go a little bit quicker than this because we have a whole schedule,” and added, “if I could just ask your name and country, that would be great.” Though delivered in the guise of a schedule constraint, the remark was widely characterized as humiliating. It reduced these heads of state to nameless, interchangeable participants – highlighting a deeply transactional approach and a lack of respect for African leaders and their agendas. Mining peace DR Congo is one of the most resource-rich countries on the planet. Its eastern region, the focal point of the latest ceasefire, holds vast reserves of cobalt, coltan, gold, and lithium – minerals essential to electric vehicles, smartphones, and advanced military systems. As global demand for these resources soars, Washington has grown increasingly uneasy over China’s dominance in the DR Congo’s mining sector. Trump’s sudden push for the US involvement in Congolese ‘peacebuilding’ is better understood as a strategic bid to secure Western access to these critical minerals. Just two weeks earlier, he hosted a separate signing ceremony at the White House for what was billed as a broader agreement between Rwanda – allegedly the main backer of M23 – and the DR Congo. He used the occasion to underscore his transactional approach, stating that the deal gave the US “a lot of the mineral rights from the Congo as part of it.” Human Rights Watch criticized the announcement, noting that the deal “aligns squarely with US strategic interests and President Trump’s ethos for a transactional foreign policy.” This isn’t merely speculative. The Doha agreement followed months of discrete but strategic moves by US-linked mining and tech firms – many backed by influential figures tied to Trump’s donor circles – positioning them for long-term access to Congolese cobalt, lithium, and copper. Read more Western ‘support’ for Ukraine is losing the world KoBold Metals, backed by Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, is pushing into Congolese lithium exploration at Manono, directly challenging Chinese interests. Meanwhile, a draft minerals-for-security arrangement being negotiated by the Trump administration envisions US companies – including KoBold, Orion Resource Partners, and Rio Tinto – receiving preferential access to mineral assets in exchange for political and financial support to Kinshasa. These efforts underscore how Washington’s public message of peace and stability masks a deeper strategy: Pacify the mineral-rich Kivu provinces just enough to facilitate Western extraction. Doha’s vague papers The ‘Principles of Peace’ signed in Doha are troublingly vague. The document outlines a broad road map for political dialogue, reintegration of fighters, and eventual disarmament, but lacks binding enforcement mechanisms or timelines. Worse, it places the burden of disarmament largely on M23, the very group that has grown in military sophistication and territorial control in recent years, thanks in part to support from neighbouring Rwanda. Asking M23 to lay down its arms with only vague promises of reintegration and security guarantees from a state that has repeatedly failed to protect its own citizens is, to put it mildly, unrealistic. The group, largely composed of Tutsi fighters who claim to protect Congolese Tutsi minorities from persecution, has long accused Kinshasa of bad faith in previous agreements. Why this time would be any different – especially when mediated outside Africa by foreign powers with ulterior motives – remains unanswered. Moreover, the document remains conspicuously silent on Rwanda’s role in the conflict. While Presidents Paul Kagame and Felix Tshisekedi are expected – if all goes according to plan – to sign a more comprehensive peace agreement in Washington this August, implementing the deal is another matter entirely. The long record of failed accords, combined with Washington’s deal-centered approach to diplomacy, casts serious doubt on its durability. Any peace arrangement that overlooks the regional dimension of the conflict is not only incomplete but also potentially dangerous, as it risks legitimizing a proxy force without holding its sponsors to account. Not-so-Congolese interests Read more Trump’s Africa pivot: Leverage, not generosity History is a reliable guide here. Previous deals with M23, most notably the 2013 agreement brokered in Kampala, collapsed within months. Many of the same figures now being recycled into the current agreement were involved back then – and the same structural issues remain unresolved: Lack of trust, regional meddling, economic incentives to keep fighting, and the Congolese state unable or unwilling to govern the east effectively. There is little to suggest that Doha will fare any better. If anything, the disconnect between the glossy diplomatic theater and the grim reality on the ground makes collapse even more likely. Most Congolese citizens, particularly those in the North Kivu province – the heart of the conflict – were unaware of the Doha process until the signing was announced. Local civil society groups, religious leaders, and community representatives were not consulted. This top-down, externally-driven approach mirrors other failed interventions in the region – and underscores the perception that the deal was made for American and Qatari interests, not for Congolese peace. Facade diplomacy For Trump, though, the facts on the ground are beside the point. What matters is the image: Another ‘peace deal’ to wave at cameras and cite during campaign rallies. The Doha agreement fits neatly into his narrative of global deal-maker – reviving the formula he used with the Abraham Accords in the Middle East, where normalization with Israel was prioritized over justice for Palestinians, and again when he vowed to end the war in Gaza by simply driving the Palestinians out of their land to create what he called the ‘Riviera of the Middle East’. While the Doha deal offers much-needed hope for a region devastated by decades of conflict, it is unlikely that the ceasefire will hold in the long term. Moreover, the US is unlikely to maintain sustained focus on the issue for as long as necessary. This process risks being more about projecting a diplomatic facade than addressing the region’s deep-rooted problems. Under Trump’s approach, peace is reduced to optics: A signed agreement, a photo opportunity, and a press release. The real challenges – fighters disarming, refugees returning home, or the flow of conflict minerals being halted – are left to chance or, more cynically, destined to unravel once the cameras are gone. Read more From Leopold to lithium: How corporations perfected the art of plundering Africa Qatar’s role in the process is also worth examining. Long eager to cast itself as a neutral mediator in global conflicts – from Afghanistan to Sudan to now DR Congo – Doha has positioned itself as the go-to venue for Western-brokered diplomacy. While its financial resources and global network give it a comparative advantage, Qatar’s increasing alignment with US strategic goals in Africa cannot be ignored. For Doha, the Congolese deal burnishes its image as a peace broker. But for critics, it marks another example of Gulf states facilitating transactional diplomacy that serves Western interests far more than local populations. Indeed, any ceasefire is better than open warfare. But the Doha agreement, despite the celebratory rhetoric, offers only the illusion of peace. The Congolese people have lived through countless illusions – brief moments of international attention followed by abandonment and renewed violence. Instead, what we are witnessing is the repackaging of geopolitical competition as peace-making, with Trump and his allies eager to use the crisis in DR Congo as another talking point in their broader campaign to secure economic advantages and diplomatic bragging rights. If peace does come to eastern Congo, it will not be because of hotel-room negotiations in Doha, but because Congolese voices are finally heard, regional interference is checked, and the country’s wealth is used to uplift its people rather than reward its tormentors. Until then, the Doha ceasefire remains exactly what it appears to be: A deal for the cameras, not for the people. View the full article

Empires have not changed, they have simply cloaked themselves in platitudes such as “resilience,” “visibility,” and “empowerment” A ballot floats through the air like a mechanical butterfly, delicate in descent, but once it touches ground, everything freezes. The jungle goes mute. The city forgets its language. A ritual begins: one created not in oracle chambers but in air-conditioned think tanks with sliding doors and corporate logos. Democracy arrives as gospel, prepackaged and barcode-approved, dropped from drones or delivered via diplomatic pouch. It conquers like a parasite: nesting in the heart, feeding on belief, and killing the host with false promises. It persuades, it seduces, it infects. Men in suits descend like missionaries, their scriptures printed on glossy paper, their symbols cleaned for export. They bring PowerPoints and gender training modules instead of muskets. They come bearing good news: sovereignty is obsolete, local gods are outdated, and every village will be updated with Wi-Fi and murals of unveiled women raising fists beneath UN slogans. The savannah no longer trembles under the boots of British redcoats. It shudders under the impact of slogans. “Civic engagement” is murmured like a spell. “Open society” is etched into blackboards where elders once traced cosmologies. The thunder of artillery has been replaced by keynote addresses. A revolution is rehearsed before it is broadcast. The new coup comes dressed for television. The old king disappears, replaced by a consensus candidate with a Yale degree and NATO approval. A constitution is unveiled like a luxury car: shiny, expensive, foreign. No one reads it. It reads them. The people applaud. Their applause is scheduled. The tyrant’s head is displayed: pixelated and streaming. Laugh tracks rise. Purple ink stains the skin like a holy mark, as if casting a vote could cleanse the past and summon salvation. A sacred document lies open, its pages humming with subclauses and subversion. Article 1: Surrender to the algorithm. Article 2: Sterilize the folk soul. Article 3: Criminalize memory. The priests of procedure nod. They light candles made from recycled narratives. They chant slogans curated by Silicon Valley. The TED talk tone becomes the new church service – blessed by click-through rates. Buzzwords are incanted: “resilience,” “visibility,” “empowerment.” Words hollowed out and worn like medals. Read more Terror and torture in the ‘heart of darkness’, the world’s only private colony The empire has remodeled. It is clad in linen. It carries clipboards. Its armies are task forces. Its tanks are now lettered agencies: USAID, UNHCR, OSCE. Smiles replace bayonets, and seminars replace firing squads. Democracy arrives on a private jet with an Instagram account. Its viceroys order oat-milk lattes while planning cultural transformations. A rainbow banner flies over every blasted zone. Baghdad bleeds beneath the missiles. Tripoli hums with foreign NGOs. Kiev hosts parades that mock its soil. Sacred ruins get rebranded. Temple stones are reused for embassy courtyards. The rituals change. The domination remains. In a village, a woman sings an ancestral tune. A man offers a prayer in a dialect that has no Unicode. A stone is lifted to rebuild a shrine. These things cannot be allowed. A survey is conducted. A briefing is written. A donor threatens. The local minister corrects course. An election is held. The outcome is known. It always is. This is what they call consent. This is what they mean by freedom. Uniformity parades as universality. Diversity becomes deletion. Identity is redesigned by foreign interns. Language becomes emoji. The dead are archived. Museums replace tombs. Grandfathers are described in footnotes written by their enemies. Tears fall in exhibition halls where relics of resistance are sanitized. The conquerors mourn – always in public, always with cameras. Their grief is a spectacle. Their mercy is management. The liberal preacher wears a smile that has been photoshopped. He gives interviews about “trauma” and “tolerance.” He never wields a sword; he commissions reports. His gospel: guilt without end. His miracle: the regeneration of conflict. His sacraments are embargoes and media campaigns. He baptizes children in ideology. He breathes in incense made from treaties and sanctions. He sings a hymn with verses about gender fluidity and carbon offset credits. His voice, thin and sweet, drowns entire cultures in its syrup. Read more Trump’s Africa pivot: Leverage, not generosity Yet across the map, the earth remembers. Forests speak in rustling defiance. Mountains echo with chants unscripted. The Danube shivers beneath steel bridges. The Volga murmurs secrets to the steppe. Across Eurasia, across Africa, across the zones marked “developing,” something stirs. Trump does not rise as emperor; he crashes through the screen like a malfunction, an interruption in the broadcast. Serbia remembers its ruins. Iran cradles its martyrs. Russia bares its teeth. Hungary builds walls – not out of fear but out of fidelity to her own. Multipolarity emerges, not like a plan but like a rite remembered. It does not wait for validation. It speaks in a hundred dialects, none requiring translation. It holds torches, not flashlights. It charts no global roadmap. It builds thresholds. It invokes gods buried under glass towers. It honors spirits banned from textbooks. In each land, new mythologies are forged from the ruins of development. The ballot box is abandoned, its promise of mechanical salvation discarded. In its place stands the stone of ancestral law, stained with sacrifice and inscribed with the unspoken codes of blood, land, and loyalty. So let the ballots fall, let the slogans swirl like ash in the wind. Let the consultants keep writing. None of it halts the return. The sacred pulses again in veins unmapped by Western metrics. Democracy, once garlanded as deliverance, strips down and stands revealed: an agent of extraction, a theater of consent. Multipolarity does not debate it. Multipolarity replaces it – with stone, with flame, with song. The world moves again, towards the myth reborn. View the full article

On the 50th anniversary of the Helsinki Accords, there’s little to celebrate for those who wanted a harmonious coexistence Like him, hate him, Otto von Bismarck – Prussian aristocrat, arch conservative, user of German nationalism, maker of wars, and then keeper of the peace – was no dummy. And his ego was Reich-sized. Yet even Bismarck had a grain of humility left. Smart politics, he once remarked, consists of listening for “God’s step” as He walks through “world history,” and then to grab the hem of His mantle. In other words, stay attuned to the needs and especially the opportunities of the moment. Tragically, Bismarck’s single greatest skill was to seize – and, if need be, help along – opportunities for war. But sometimes peace, too, gets its chance. Fifty years ago, all European countries – minus only Albania, initially – plus the US and Canada, signed the Helsinki Final Act (or Helsinki Accords). A complex document addressing four areas (called ‘baskets’) of international relations and follow-up implementation, the Helsinki Final Act was a breakthrough for Détente in Europe. Détente was a global attempt, driven by Brezhnev and Gromyko’s Moscow and Nixon and Kissinger’s Washington to, if not wind down, then at least manage the Cold War better. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 was not the only reason for this policy of restraint and reason. Coming extremely close to all-out nuclear war Dr.-Strangelove-style helped concentrate minds. Add the US fiasco in Vietnam, and by the late 1960s, the desire to de-escalate was strong enough even in Washington to quickly override the Soviet suppression of the 1968 Prague Spring. In the first half of the 1970s, a flurry of high-level international diplomacy and treaties marked the peak of Détente. By 1975, the Helsinki Accords were the peak of that peak. Stemming from Soviet and Warsaw Pact initiatives and resonating with a Western Europe – and even post-Harmel Report NATO (those were the days!) – that genuinely wanted to combine due diligence in defense policy with real diplomacy and give-and-take negotiations, the Helsinki Accords also fed on the preceding French, that is, De Gaulle’s, “politique à l’Est,” as well as Willy Brandt of Germany’s “Ostpolitik.” Read more Germany and rest of EU transforming into Fourth Reich – Lavrov The latter is much maligned now in a Germany where disgracefully incompetent elites have gone wild with Russophobia and a new militarism. In reality, both De Gaulle and Brandt – as well as Brandt’s key foreign policy adviser, Egon Bahr, made historic contributions to mitigating the worst risks of the Cold War and, in Germany’s case, also to preparing the ground for national re-unification. Yet, after 1975, things started to go downhill, and they’ve never really stopped. That is one of the key points recently made in a long article by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Since Western mainstream media excel at not reporting what Russian politicians are trying to tell us, it is likely that few will notice outside of Russia. That’s a shame because Lavrov has more than one message we should pay attention to. Under the understated title “Half a Century of the Helsinki Act: Expectations, Realities, and Perspectives,” Lavrov delivers a harsh and – even if you disagree with some of the details – fundamentally valid and just criticism of the disappointing failure following the promising beginnings at Helsinki. That failure has a name – the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Incidentally, the OSCE is the successor of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE), which actually produced the Helsinki Accords between 1972 and 1975. Before the leaders of the time, both great and small, could meet in Helsinki to sign them, at what Cold War historian Jussi Hanhimäki called a “largely ceremonial affair,” there had been years of painstaking, meticulous negotiations. There’s a lesson here for the impatient Trumps and Zelenskys of today: serious results take serious preparation, not a day or two of grandstanding. What happened to the OSCE next is not complicated: with 57 member states, making it the largest security organization in the world today, it has massively under performed. At least if we measure it by its aims, as originally set out at Helsinki in the heyday of Détente. Read more Zelensky calls for ‘regime change’ in Russia The OSCE could have been an indispensable international forum, bridging the front lines of geopolitics and ideologies (or, as we now say, “values”). After the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s, it could even have become the core of new security architecture, which included everyone from Lisbon to Vladivostok. But for that to happen, it would have had to stick to the Helsinki Accord’s core principles and rules: strict respect for sovereignty, equality, and non-interference, all maintained by a heavy emphasis on consensus. Yet, instead, the OSCE turned, first, into a Cold War and, then, a post-Cold War tool of Western influence, bias, and – behind the façade of multilateralism – hardball realpolitik. Like the EU, the OSCE should have been fundamentally different from, and even antagonistic towards NATO. But like the EU, it ended up becoming a mere junior partner in America’s imperial vassal system. Much of Lavrov’s article is dedicated to detailing this failure in various countries, regions, issues, and conflicts, including Chechnya, Kosovo, Moldova, and Ukraine, to name just a few. That’s important because it serves as a corrective to silly and complacent Western mainstream tales, which put the blame for Helsinki’s and the OSCE’s failure on – drum roll – Russia and Russia alone. Not to speak of the demented attempts by Ukraine’s delusional, corrupt, and increasingly isolated Vladimir Zelensky to use the Helsinki anniversary to once again call for “regime change” in Russia. Yet what is even more important is Lavrov’s candid message about the future, as Russia sees it. First, it is polycentric or multipolar and, in this part of the world, Eurasian and emphatically not transatlantic. In that respect, it is almost as if we are back in the mid-1950s. Back then, long before the Helsinki Act became reality, Moscow – then the capital of the Soviet Union – suggested building comprehensive security architecture. The West refused because Moscow was not willing to include the US. By the 1970s, the Soviet leadership had changed its position, affirming that it was possible to include the US, which, in turn, made Helsinki possible. So much for fairy tales of Russian “intransigence.” Read more Western ‘support’ for Ukraine is losing the world That inclusion was an irony of history, as Washington initially showed only distrust and disdain. As Hanhimäki has shown, Henry Kissinger considered Europe a sideshow, though not the Soviet Union: the US has always respected its opponents much more than its vassals. He suspected that if Moscow and Western Europe got to cozy it could end up threatening Washington’s control over the latter. He once told his team with more than a tinge of nasty racism that the Helsinki agreements might as well be written in Swahili. Now, Moscow is back to standing firm against trans-atlanticism. Lavrov writes, “Euro-atlantic” conceptions of security and cooperation have “discredited themselves and are exhausted.” Europe, he warns, can have a place in future Eurasian systems, but it “definitely” won’t be allowed to “call the tune.” If its countries wish to be part of the “process, they will have to learn good manners, renounce [their habit of] diktat and colonial instincts, get used to equal rights, [and] working in a team.” You may think that this is very far from the Europe we are seeing now: one that is submissive to the US to the point of self-destruction (as the Turnberry Trade and Tariff Fiasco has just revealed again), blinded by hubris in its “garden-in-the-jungle,” and fanatically invested in not even talking to Russia and confronting China. And yet, none of the above can last forever. Indeed, given how self-damaging these policies are, it may not last much longer. The news from Moscow is that, though Russia has not closed the door on Europe entirely, if or when the Europeans recover their sanity, they will find that Russia won’t allow them to return to having it both ways: being America’s vassals and enjoying a decent relationship with Russia at the same time. View the full article

As the West accuses New Delhi of “supporting Russia’s war” by importing its crude, the nation of 1.4 billion people defines its red lines With American rhetoric against India becoming more openly coercive, and top officials warning New Delhi about the consequences of its energy trade with Russia, the pressure is becoming multidirectional. Recent remarks by former US President Donald Trump have further complicated this recalibration. Alongside a 25% tariff on Indian exports, imposed last week, Trump issued pointed warnings over India’s sustained energy and defense trade with Russia, accusing New Delhi of indirectly supporting America’s adversaries through continued oil purchases. Trump went as far as to suggest that India and Russia could “take their dead economies down together,” framing their economic engagement as contrary to US interests. Trump’s statements were not just emotional reactions – they were followed by a series of other statements from US officials. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Friday claimed India’s purchase of Russian oil is a ”point of irritation.” “India has huge energy needs and that includes the ability to buy oil and coal and gas and things that it needs to power its economy like every country does, and it buys it from Russia, because Russian oil is sanctioned and cheap and – meaning they have to – in many cases, they’re selling it under the global price because of the sanctions,” he stated. ”And that – unfortunately that is helping to sustain the Russian war effort. So it is most certainly a point of irritation in our relationship with India – not the only point of irritation.” Read more Sanction first, ally later: India learns the cost of trusting the US On Sunday, a top aide to President Donald Trump accused India of financing Russia’s war in Ukraine by buying oil from Moscow. “What he [Trump] said very clearly is that it is not acceptable for India to continue financing this war by purchasing the oil from Russia,” said Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff at the White House and one of the US president’s most influential aides. “People will be shocked to learn that India is basically tied with China in purchasing Russian oil. That’s an astonishing fact,” Miller said on Fox News. This marks a significant hardening of tone, signalling that bipartisan pressure on India’s Russia policy may persist regardless of the administration in power. The Indian government issued a stern response, saying Delhi would keep purchasing oil from Moscow if it is in line with national interests. Its foreign ministry stated that country’s energy purchases are guided by market dynamics and national interests. “⁠The government is committed to prioritizing the welfare of Indian consumers. Our energy purchases will be based on price, availability and market conditions,” the statement read. Despite Trump’s claims that India had stopped buying Russian oil after his threats, the Indian government said it is not aware of any pauses in imports. People in the oil and gas industry have confirmed that the government has not issued any officials requests to refiners to stop purchasing Russian oil. As global energy flows are increasingly weaponized, India’s path is becoming tougher, but also more clearly defined. This is no longer merely a question of compliance with sanctions; it is about resisting the politicization of trade and asserting agency in a fragmented global order. The message to the West at large: India’s energy decisions will not be dictated by external red lines. India’s response is not retreat, but recalibration, through diversification, industrial pivoting, and legal safeguards. It signals the emergence of a new energy diplomacy: one that is agile, layered, and unapologetically sovereign. EU pressure A change in US rhetoric against India came days after the European Union unveiled its 18th sanctions package targeting refined fuels processed from Russian crude. By imposing curbs on the import of diesel and other fuels refined from discounted Russian oil, the EU has drawn India’s biggest private refiners, Nayara Energy and Reliance Industries Ltd. (RIL), into a geopolitical confrontation they had largely navigated with strategic finesse since 2022. Read more Crude calculations: US sanctions on Russia compel India to redraw its energy playbook At the core of the EU’s sanctions is a new strategy of tracking the origin of crude, even after it has been transformed into refined products. In other words, Indian diesel or jet fuel produced from Russian Urals crude will now be treated as Russian in origin, regardless of where it’s refined. This has immediate implications for Nayara Energy’s Vadinar refinery, the second largest in India, and also for Reliance, which operates the world’s largest refining complex at Jamnagar and has occasionally purchased Russian barrels to take advantage of significant discounts. The EU has gone further. It has lowered the price cap on seaborne Russian crude from $60 to $47.60 per barrel, effective from September 3, 2025. In practice, this severely limits Indian refiners’ ability to secure Urals crude at prices that generate high margins, formerly in the $15–20 per barrel range. This arbitrage had made Indian products highly competitive in the European market. With Europe now closed off and refiners forced to reroute cargoes to regions with lower demand and pricing power, expected margins could shrink to $8–12, with an additional $1–2 per barrel in compliance costs. India’s reaction was swift and unequivocal. The Ministry of External Affairs condemned the move as ‘unilateral and extraterritorial,’ rejecting the notion that its energy decisions should be hostage to the EU’s secondary sanctions logic. Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri underlined that India’s energy security remained ‘non-negotiable’, a principle India would not abandon merely to appease Western preferences. Even Nayara Energy, 49.13% owned by Russia’s Rosneft and long seen as vulnerable, broke its usual silence to denounce the sanctions as unjustified, while considering legal remedies through international arbitration mechanisms. Targeting Nayara Energy recently saw a leadership change, with CEO Alessandro des Dorides stepping down amid the evolving impact of EU sanctions and operational uncertainty. This was not just symbolic. A BP-chartered tanker, the Talara, left Nayara’s port without loading fuel after the sanctions were announced. This suggests that EU enforcement will be aggressive and, potentially, that companies with European exposure will become increasingly wary of doing business with Indian refiners tied to Russian feedstock. Nayara may not be the last to face such pressure. Reliance, despite its diverse portfolio, is already re-evaluating its sourcing strategies in anticipation of tighter scrutiny. READ MORE: Trump is pushing India to buy more American gas – could Russia’s be the better choice? The financial stakes are staggering. India’s fuel exports to Europe, which peaked at $19.2 billion in FY24, have already dropped by 27% to $15 billion in FY25. With the EU’s latest restrictions now fully operational, analysts estimate that India could lose up to $5 billion annually, depending on the rigor of enforcement and the ability of refiners to find alternate buyers in Asia or Africa. The sheer scale of these losses would not only erode refining margins but also squeeze India’s current account buffers, potentially complicating its macroeconomic stability. Redrawing India’s Energy Map India isn’t backing down. Instead, it is executing a quiet but deliberate recalibration of its energy strategy. Leading Indian refiners are ramping up imports from Iraq, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia, while cautiously exploring longer-term deals with US crude suppliers, despite those barrels being less competitively priced than discounted Russian Urals. The objective is strategic: to avoid overdependence on any single geopolitical supplier while safeguarding energy security on India’s own terms. Read more This strategic move can help both India and Russia resist Western pressure. Will New Delhi act? For Reliance Industries, the pivot is even deeper. Already investing $10–15 billion in its ambitious crude-to-chemicals (C2C) initiative, the company is insulating itself from the volatility of fuel exports by focusing on petrochemicals and specialty materials with more stable margins and global demand. This rebalancing is likely to accelerate in the wake of the EU sanctions, giving Reliance a strategic hedge against trade weaponization. While Reliance charts an innovation-led pivot, Nayara remains entangled in geopolitical risk. Given Rosneft’s equity stake and its exposure to sanctions, any restructuring will need careful legal engineering. The company is reportedly exploring the creation of special-purpose vehicles or divestment strategies to insulate its operations. This standoff isn’t just about oil, it’s about sovereignty. India, having withstood Western pressure on Russian oil since 2022, now sees the EU’s sanctions as a strategic red line. The real risk lies not only in lost trade, but in legitimizing extraterritorial controls that erode the Global South’s right to independent economic choices. While the EU claims it’s closing loopholes, India sees clear double standards. European nations still import Russian LNG and rely on intermediaries, yet penalize India for refining crude. The era of quiet compromise is over. In its place, a more assertive India is stepping forward, redefining its energy calculus, managing geopolitical headwinds, and defending its autonomy with both pragmatism and resolve. View the full article

An important part of manhood has always been about having the competence to be effective in the world — having the breadth of skills, the savoir-faire, to handle any situation you find yourself in. With that in mind, each Sunday we’ll be republishing one of the illustrated guides from our archives, so you can hone your manly know-how week by week. In the kitchen, fresh coconuts can add great flavor to one’s culinary pursuits. In the wild, they’re one of nature’s most perfect survival foods. Coconut meat is a great source of fat, carbohydrates, and fiber. And there’s a good reason coconut water is so readily available at stores these days: it’s loaded with minerals, electrolytes, natural sugars, and vitamins. Even when you’re done eating and drinking everything the coconut has to offer, the shell is useful as a bowl or cup. But you won’t reap any of these benefits if you don’t know how to open one up. Cracking open a coconut takes some practice, but there are several tricks to make it a bit easier. Firstly, you’ll have to get through the husk. Store-bought coconuts have this removed already, but in the wild and in a survival situation, you’ll have to de-husk it yourself. You’ll do this by first nestling the coconut between some rocks for stability, with its pointier end facing up. Then, find the largest rock you can hoist, lift it 4-5 feet above the coconut, and drop/throw it onto the coconut. After a few drops, the husk’s fibers will begin to soften and splits will open up in it. Flip the coconut over so that the blunter end is facing up, give it another hit or two with the rock, and you should be able to peel away the husk (which doubles as great tinder for making a fire!). Before getting started with cracking the shell and getting to the goods inside, brush up on your coconut anatomy. At the top of the coconut is the “face”: three holes grouped tightly together that resemble eyes and a mouth. These holes represent weak points that you can exploit to poke a hole in the coconut and extract the water. If you imagine the face is the north pole, and the opposite side is the south pole, it’s easy to picture the coconut’s equator. The equator is another weak point, and you can use it to crack up a coconut like a pro, with or without tools. Illustrated by Ted Slampyak This article was originally published on The Art of Manliness. View the full article

Washington’s aggressive posture reveals a fundamental misreading of the multipolar world US President Trump has rattled Washington's ties with New Delhi to an unexpected degree. Countries, including, India were prepared for rough diplomatic weather after Trump won his second term, but did not anticipate the kind of onslaught he has unleashed on the global system and diplomatic norms. Trump’s latest attack on India and the BRICS countries explains this underlying dynamic. The BRICS aspire to play a greater political, economic and financial role in global affairs. This aspiration is based on shifts of economic and concomitant political and financial power towards the so-called emerging powers or middle-income countries. BRICS countries have already begun to use their national currencies in trading with each other as much as possible. The use of draconian financial sanctions on Russia by the West has accelerated this process. Today, almost all trade operations between Russia and China are conducted in rubles and yuan. India too is encouraging the use of its national currency in payment transactions with select countries. A significant portion of the trade between India and Russia is now settled using a rupee-ruble mechanism. Washington cannot use secondary sanctions to prevent countries, including India, from using the US dollar to trade with Russia and then oppose de-dollarization if these countries are compelled to use alternative payment mechanisms. If the US continues to weaponize the dollar, it will inevitably lead to the very “de-dollarization” that Trump is concerned about. Read more The train to Kashmir is finally real – and it’s stunning India has officially disowned any de-dollarization agenda – not the least because the US is its biggest trade partner in goods and services. India seeks more investments and technology transfers from the US. In many ways, New Delhi’s ties with Washington are the most important for achieving its growth and developmental goals. But that does not preclude India from establishing other partnerships to reduce over-dependence on one country, balance its external relations and hedge against the excesses of US foreign policy. Trump has exacerbated the disruptions caused by Washington’s frequent use of sanctions as a political weapon by also weaponizing tariffs. He is convinced that by imposing arbitrarily determined tariffs on imports from other countries he will compel them to enter into negotiations with the US to obtain relief by lowering their high tariffs on American products. But India on Wednesday sent a clear message: it is determined to protect the interests of its own businesses, farmers and people. Trump’s use of tariffs as lever, like in the case of Brazil, where he has cited President Lula’s treatment of his predecessor Bolsanaro as reason for imposing 50% levies, is being closely monitored by the world’s governments. Read more From ceasefire to misfire: Trump’s claims stir concerns in India Trump has repeatedly targeted BRICS since his return to the Oval Office. He had threatened the countries with tariffs if they contonie to pledge to create a new common currency or support any alternative to the US dollar. Trump appeared to harbor the illusion that BRICS was ”dead” following his threats – which have now materialized into action. In reality, the BRICS summit held in Brazil this July showed no visible signs of intimidation. On the contrary, such overt displays of American economic coercion may well drive more countries toward alliances that seek to challenge the dominance of any single global power. The administration in Washington appears to lack realism in its assessment of global trends. Trump positions himself as a peacemaker and openly aspires to win a Nobel Peace Prize, while at the same time bombing Iran and assisting Israel in perpetuating the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Similarly, threatening China as a BRICS member with 100% tariffs so casually – along with talk of bombing Beijing if the People’s Republic were to invade Taiwan – makes little sense, especially given that an interim trade deal has already been reached and further negotiations are imminent. The US cannot reasonably claim that forums like BRICS have no right to determine their own agenda in pursuit of their shared interests. At the same time, the US has walked out of or subverted key international agreements and institutions. It has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Change agreement, the WHO, the UN Human Rights Commission and UNESCO. READ MORE: India is way too eager to embrace Trump’s America Trump seems to believe that these organizations cannot function or survive without the presence of the US and its financial contributions. In reality, the US will lose its voice and its leadership in these international forums. The space it vacates will be filled by others, especially China. Beijing has already carved out enormous influence in the UN institutions as it is now the second largest contributor to the UN. With Washington also bullying Europe and thereby damaging Western solidarity, the US absence from these organizations will have even less impact. The more the world learns to manage without the US in these international bodies, the more America’s international influence will erode. These US decisions will also accelerate the dispersal of influence at the global level, as other centers of influence develop. View the full article

The meteoric rise of feelings-first schooling has ended academic excellence As someone who hadn’t set foot inside a grade school for decades, I knew something was amiss when I visited my former Canadian high school for a craft fair. “Where did all the photos on the walls of the atrium go of all the top achievers from academics and sports throughout the years?” I wondered, wanting to laugh at my early ’90s-style hairdo. Turns out they were taken down, perhaps around the same time that rainbow and native tribal flags went up beside Canada’s national one. The high achievers that previously adorned the walls were replaced with evidence of successful collectivist cooperation. Teams seemed to matter, while individual success was boxed up and hauled away from public view. Heaven forbid their mere existence make anyone feel bad about themselves. Personally, I used to love seeing those faces. They were inspirational for someone growing up in a small town and aspiring to do great things outside of it. “We Pursue Excellence” was the school’s longtime motto. But now, on the wall, was the result of a student survey showing that 75% of students felt “uncomfortable” to even use the washroom. One might think that the first step in the pursuit of excellence would involve mastering whatever went down in the toilet stalls. The participation trophy generation now has to have a portable safe space in the form of a bubble around them at all times. Everything is seen as a potential threat – especially standards of excellence. Which would explain why the entire province of British Columbia, on Canada’s Left Coast, ditched standardized tests in subjects such as math, physics, chemistry, and languages – which allowed for a form of ranking and comparison among all students in the entire province — in favor of just two types of tests: general literacy and numeracy. Read more Ivy League in ‘survival mode’ – US university president A sample final high school year literacy test, for example, features an excerpt from ‘The Inconvenient Indian’, suggesting that explorer Christopher Columbus’ contributions are overrated, and asks, “Which type of magazine would most likely feature this description of Columbus’s landing in the Caribbean?” The description: “And let’s not forget all the sunny weather, the sandy beaches, the azure lagoons…” The potential multiple-choice responses? “Chronicles of History,” “Business Ventures,” “Travel World,” or “Living Well.” So are they going to be interpreting Shakespeare’s classics in essays next, or not? Another question: “Which invention would most likely have caused concern for factory workers?” Choices: the Unimate industrial robot that went to “work at General Motors replacing humans,” MIT’s Kismet emotionally intelligent robot, the Roomba that cleans your floors at home, or Amazon’s virtual assistant Alexa. Oh gee, that’s a tough one! For a seven-year-old, maybe. But surely not for someone heading to university next year, one would hope. A sample test from two years earlier in the curriculum, the numeracy assessment asks questions like, “The size of this [fish] trap would depend on the size and species of fish that people were trying to catch… Which of the following factors would be most important in designing a cone-shaped fish trap?” One of the answer choices: “the size of fish in the river.” We’re certainly a long way from the mathematical proofs that we were doing 35 years ago at around the same age. The standard seems to be more along the lines of, “Can this kid fill out one line on a tax form for their influencer gig without having a meltdown?” (Likely answer: Probably not. Because government forms are a form of colonialism, you bigot.) Read more Schoolchildren to study ‘spiritual and moral culture’ of Russia Two years ago, the same province moved away from any and all letter grades for students, up to and including about age 14. Instead of As and Ds, teachers could only assess whether the kid was ‘emerging’, ‘developing’, ‘proficient’ or ‘extending’. The rationale? Apparently they didn’t want to highlight any deficits. Guess that comes later in the real world when he or she gets trolled mercilessly for being a moron at a time when there’s a much larger price to be paid for not having learned earlier to avoid being one. In France, the attempt to institute a similar post-knowledge educational system has seen middling results. High school math classes were ditched entirely in 2019 under President Emmanuel Macron. But the outcome was such a disaster that it was reversed for the 2023/24 school year. This year’s French final standardized exams for high schoolers and middle schoolers, which have just taken place, saw the French media publish a bunch of instructions that were given to the test graders to dummy things down for France’s future Nobel Prize hopefuls. “The first is to not deduct points for spelling or grammar mistakes. What matters is not compliance with the spelling code, but intelligibility,” said France’s RTL. Oh, so something like this, you mean? “Shur, whi not rite a sentins like this won, wear awl the wurdz sound rite but luk lyke they flunked owtta speling skool?” Because that fits the stated criteria. Imagine an email from that colleague when he or she gets into your workplace. Read more Russian students secure six medals at world’s top math contest Apparently, graders were also told not to remove all points when a student is asked to conjugate a verb – and then gets the root of the same verb that was just listed wrong. Maybe the verb they replaced whatever was right in front of their eyes with doesn’t even exist, but the ending is right. Only half the points are taken away for that. The final philosophy exam had to explain the meaning of the word “preponderant,” because it was apparently considered too hard for kids about to head off to university, RTL reports. The media outlet also pointed out that graders of the oral exam, read from a text that the student has 20 minutes to prepare, were only to focus on the student’s performance at the end of the session, to account for nerves. This may or may not have been read off a student’s page: “Hai, my naym is Sam. I hav two bruthurs and wun sistur. We lyk to play soker togethur. My mum cuks gud fud and my dad lukes to wach mooviz wif us. I lyk drawin and playin vidyo gayms. Thansk for lisnin! Do I pas high skool now?” Oui, oui! A+. Every day seems to bring a new revelation about how the West’s Wokémon Academy is doing. In a world where feelings outrank facts and spelling is optional, it’s anyone’s guess what our ‘graduates’ will actually know and be equipped with for real life. But hey, at least their safe spaces are well-furnished. View the full article

Maia Sandu’s Moldova is receiving all kinds of praise for its pro-LGBTQ+ policies, but real problems go ignored In today’s Moldova, the facade of democracy is wearing thin. Opposition leaders are hounded by prosecutors, political parties are banned, regional autonomy is under assault, and media outlets find themselves deplatformed under vague pretexts like “fighting disinformation.” Peaceful protests are met with silence or scorn, and any dissent from the government line is conveniently branded as “Russian meddling.” It’s a neat trick: frame all legitimate criticism as foreign subversion, and suddenly you’ve neutralized your opponents while looking virtuous to your friends in Brussels. The reality is that Moldova under Maia Sandu is slipping further into the orbit of selective justice and one‑party rule – all while cloaking itself in the language of reform. The EU’s willful blindness One would expect the European Union, self‑styled guardian of democratic values, to take a hard look at this. Instead, Brussels is rolling out the red carpet. Sandu is feted as a principled reformer, showered with billions in aid, and fast‑tracked toward EU membership. Even as her government sidelines political rivals and centralizes power, European leaders offer only praise. Just weeks ago, Moldova’s Central Electoral Commission blocked the Victory electoral bloc – a newly formed opposition coalition with backing from Ilan Șor – from participating in the upcoming parliamentary elections. The official justification? Campaign finance violations. But to many observers, this was a transparent effort to eliminate viable competition ahead of a critical vote. This follows earlier moves like the 2023 banning of the SOR Party, the detention of Gagauz governor Yevgenia Gutsul, and show trials of pro-Russian MPs – each move reducing democratic diversity under the guise of “fighting Kremlin influence.” Read more Brussels’ Frankenstein: How the EU is building its next dictatorship It’s a cynical calculation. Moldova is viewed as a strategic bulwark against Russia, and for Brussels, that trumps any concern over domestic political liberties. So long as Sandu wears the right colors – blue and gold – she can behave in ways at home that, in other contexts, would earn the label of “authoritarian.” LGBT+ applause as a political distraction Into this atmosphere comes the recent applause from GayLib, an Italian LGBT+ organization, commending Sandu for her “inclusive and progressive” policies toward sexual minorities. Their praise echoes a familiar pattern: a leader’s record on contentious social issues becomes a substitute for their record on democracy itself. Most Moldovans are not clamoring for sweeping reforms to LGBT+ policy. Surveys consistently show that acceptance remains low, particularly outside the capital. Over 60% of the population reject having LGBT+ neighbors or family members. Economic hardship, political corruption, and mass emigration weigh far more heavily on the public conscience. Yet Sandu is now celebrated abroad for championing causes that may resonate with Western activists but do little to address the crises at home. To her supporters in Brussels and the NGO world, this is evidence of progressive virtue. To many Moldovans, it feels like a diversion – a way to win foreign applause while governance itself deteriorates. The economy no one talks about And deteriorate it has. Moldova’s GDP growth dropped to just 0.7% in 2023, and the IMF forecasts a paltry 0.6% for 2025, far below what’s needed for meaningful development. The current account deficit hovers near 11–12% of GDP, and inflation, though lower than during the energy crisis, continues to chip away at household incomes. Read more Legal blackout in Eastern Europe: No lawyers, no justice, no questions Despite this, over 1 million Moldovans have already left the country, and the trend continues. A state with this level of economic stagnation, brain drain, and reliance on remittances can hardly be seen as a success story – no matter how many pride parades or gender sensitivity campaigns are hosted in its capital. Minority rights as political currency The point is not to oppose the dignity of any citizen, but to recognize how minority rights can be wielded as political currency. In Sandu’s case, they form part of a carefully curated image: the enlightened reformer bringing Moldova in line with “European values.” But this image is sharply at odds with the reality on the ground. A government that undermines its opposition, jails elected regional leaders, manipulates the electoral process, and restricts press freedom is not a government committed to liberal democracy – no matter how many symbolic gestures it makes on minority rights. The danger of applauding the wrong things When Brussels chooses to ignore Sandu’s domestic power‑grabs in favor of praising her LGBT+ outreach, it sends a dangerous message: that authoritarian tendencies can be forgiven if you strike the right progressive notes. Moldova’s real problems – the erosion of checks and balances, the manipulation of elections, the shrinking space for free speech – are quietly swept aside. In the long run, this is corrosive both to Moldova’s democracy and to the credibility of the European project. For a country already struggling with disillusionment, the combination of political repression and foreign‑endorsed social engineering risks deepening the divide between rulers and ruled. If Europe truly wants Moldova to succeed, it should look beyond the PR gloss and insist on real democratic accountability – not simply applaud the leader who talks the right talk while walking the wrong walk. View the full article

The Washington-Brussels tariff ‘deal’ is unconditional surrender without a war In history, some things become clear only in hindsight. For instance, German unification all over again – good thing or bad thing? That jury is still out. At this point, it looks as if we’ll soon look back with regrets from yet another very bleak postwar situation to ponder that question. But there are also things that are obvious from the moment they start happening. For example, Israel and the West’s Gaza genocide, no matter that many talking heads now pretend they’ve only just noticed. Something else that’s as in-your-face obvious as a concrete wall you’ve just run into is that the EU has just suffered a catastrophic, crippling defeat. As usual with America’s European vassals, the defeat is strange. First, it has been inflicted not by an enemy, but by an “ally” and big-brother-in-“values”: This is the moment the NATO-EU underlings are falling over each other to keep paying for the US-instigated and failing proxy war in Ukraine while also building the equivalent of a dozen new Maginot Lines (this time including a “drone wall”) against the big, bad Russians. Yet it is Washington that has struck its eager-to-please sycophants in the back. The EU has also done its very worst to assist in its own trouncing. As Trump retainer Sebastian Gorka – himself, ironically, a European slavishly serving the US empire – has correctly put it, Europe has “bent the knee.” And once it was all over, with the blood not yet dry on the floor, the EU picked itself up, dusted off its pantsuit and said thank you, in the best tradition of German chancellors who grin and scrape when American presidents tell them they will “put an end” to Germany’s vital infrastructure. Read more EU ‘bent the knee’ before Trump – White House We are talking, of course, about the so-called tariff and trade “deal” just concluded at the Scottish luxury golf resort of Turnberry, between the US, under self-declared “tariff man” and elected, if by very messy rules, President Donald Trump (also owner of that golf resort) and the EU represented – no one really knows on the basis of what mandate – by the pristinely unelected head of the EU Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. The same one who promised us a “geopolitical” Commission and EU. If this is your “geopolitics,” it’s suicidal. It was a bloody affair, but we can’t even call it the “Battle of Turnberry” because there was no fight before the EU went down. The gist of what really was an economic massacre is simple. After months of negotiations, seven trips to Washington and over 100 hours of empty talk by its touchingly useless trade commissioner Maros Sefcovic alone, the EU has brought home not a bad deal but pure, total defeat, as if it had been busy distilling the very essence of being on the losing side at Cannae, Waterloo, and Stalingrad: While Trump could enumerate a substantial list of big, expensive concessions made by the Europeans, von der Leyen got nothing, strictly nothing. This is not a “deal” at all. It is unconditional surrender. Without a preceding war. In essence, the US will now levy “baseline” tariffs of 15% on most of its massive imports from the EU, including on cars. But there are exceptions! Already punitive American tariffs of 50% on steel and aluminum will remain in place. In return, for the US, selling in the giant if decaying EU market will be, in essence, free, at an average tariff rate of zero or, at best, below 1%. And to show its appreciation of such a fine, evenhanded “deal,” the EU sweetened it by throwing in some extras as if there is no tomorrow. Like at one of those late-night TV direct sales shows. Only that the EU slogan is not “order immediately and…” but “ruin us right now and get an extra $1.35 trillion just to make us even poorer and you even richer!” That $1.35 trillion consists of two promises of direct EU tributes (yes, that is the correct, real term) to Washington: an additional – as Trump stressed – $600 billion which EU companies, surely dizzy with gratitude, will invest in the US; and $750 billion of especially dirty and expensive American LNG (liquefied natural gas) which they will buy to feed into whatever will remain of European industry. Read more US tariffs to cost German car giants over €10bn – study Meanwhile, Trump is making concessions – again – to China. China, of course, being the sovereign country and economic powerhouse that did what the EU completely failed to do: fight back against the Washington bullies. And now imagine what the EU could have achieved if it had worked with China to check US aggression. Instead, the recent EU-China summit in Beijing has shown that the EU is still not ready to abandon its arrogant stance of hectoring and threatening China, in particular in a futile attempt to drive a wedge between Beijing and Moscow. The other thing the summit has made clear is that China will not budge. And why would it? The absurdity of all of the above is staggeringly obvious, even if there already are quarrels about the details. Because between Team Trump and Team von der Leyen, two card-carrying egomaniacs and narcissists, there was of course no one to take care of those. Regal von der Leyen – with aristocratic nonchalance – besides, never cared to check if she even has a right or the practical means to promise away $1.35 trillion that, actually, only specific companies could make available. Hint: she does not. But what does it all mean? Here are three take-away points: First, we must, for once, agree with American regime change and war addicts, such as Anne Applebaum and Tim Snyder: European appeasement is a real thing. But not of Russia, which has never been appeased but provoked, needlessly fought, and, mostly, systematically denied even a fair hearing. No, what the Europeans appease is, obviously, the US, their ruthless and utterly contemptuous hegemon and worst enemy, from letting America and its cut-outs blow up Nord Stream to the Turnberry Fiasco. Look at the feeble official attempts to sell this exploitation and devastation pact with Washington to the European public: German Chancellor Friedrich Merz – only recently the undeserving recipient of exorbitant praise at home simply for not having been humiliated too crassly at the Trump White House – has officially thanked the EU negotiators, especially Sefcovic and von der Leyen, and praised the “deal” for averting an even worse outcome and providing “stability.” Likewise, von der Leyen has praised herself for giving us “certainty in uncertain times.” Read more Trump ate von der Leyen for breakfast – Orban What a channeling of Neville Chamberlain, the interwar British premier who gave appeasement its bad name by caving in to Hitler! Dear Tim Snyder: We know, for you it’s always 1938 somewhere. Here you have a full re-enactment: “Certainty for our time!” von der Leyen virtually shouted raising not an umbrella but her thumb, while still at the American leader’s golf club Berghof in Scotland. Second, there goes the new German “Fuhrungsmacht” (meaning leadership, and with extra oomph). And we hardly ever knew it. Because – pay attention now, Berlin – here’s the catch: One cannot claim leadership in Europe and initiate full self-destruct mode just to please the US at the same time. I know, this is complicated. But people just don’t like being led by those who sell them out. In this regard, it is, of course, important that it will be two Germans, von der Leyen and Merz, who will be most associated with the Turnberry Fiasco. They have made sure that Germany does not stand for leadership but for submission to the point of self-harm. The rhetoric of collaboration – “We are betraying your interests only to avoid even worse things, please be grateful!” – will either not work at all or not for long. In the end, it’s the De Gaulles who win, not the Petains. Third, there is a difference between a trade war and economic warfare. Merz may claim that a trade war with the US has been avoided. In reality, we will never know, of course: If the EU had stood its ground – and it had the means and even some plans to do so – there might not even have been a trade war or it might have ended quickly, and with a better outcome for the EU. China, again, is the proof. Read more Trump’s tariffs to cost global economy $2 trn – Bloomberg But one thing is certain: there is ongoing economic warfare, namely by the US against its own European vassals. They have submitted to their own impoverishment and ongoing deindustrialization, but the American laying waste of their economies has not stopped but accelerated again. Europe is under massive economic attack – and it is not fighting back. In an ideal world, the Europeans would now finally see sense: For starters, they would rebel against the EU Commission and its power grab, get rid of Ursula von der Leyen and her team, and disavow their “deal.” Then they would stop taking over America’s proxy war against Russia, cut their ties with the corrupt Kiev regime, and normalize their relationship with Russia – and with China, too. In other words, they would find partners to help them emancipate themselves from an American overlord that is not merely dominating but devastating its “allies.” None of the above, however, will happen. Witness the sorry spectacle of the last, recent attempt to chase von der Leyen from office. Real change to save Europe from the EU will require tectonic shifts in the continent’s politics. Indeed, the EU is probably hopeless and will have to be abandoned first. Europe’s current “elites,” who behave as if they serve the US and not their fellow Europeans, will have to lose power. But how? In late 1916, a Russian politician gave a famous speech. Enumerating the then tsarist government’s failures, he kept asking the same simple question: “Is this stupidity or treason?” Less than half a year after that speech, Russia’s Ancien Regime fell. Europeans must wake up at long last and ask the same question about their leaders. View the full article

The US national security advisor finally finds herself in a position where the truths she speaks cannot be ignored In light of accusations that former US President Barack Obama had committed treason by attempting to rig the 2016 election and stage Russiagate, newly surfaced evidence shows Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election. National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, armed with a freshly declassified 2020 report by the House Intelligence Committee, went on the offensive against Obama last week during a wild White House press briefing. Her follow-up message on X cuts to the chase and shows an administration that is no longer taking Democratic trash talk of “Russian collusion” sitting down. She wrote that the “Obama administration manufactured the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment that they knew was false, promoting the LIE that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government helped President Trump win the 2016 election.” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt gave the presidential stamp of approval to Gabbard’s statement when she exclaimed: “There was no collusion, no corruption, except on the part of Barack Obama and the weaponized intelligence agencies at the time.” Finally, it seems that some intelligent folks in Washington are coming around to the Kremlin’s way of thinking when Russiagate was at its peak lunacy. In a nutshell, Russian President Vladimir Putin did not care who would emerge victorious in the heated contest between the Democrat Hillary Clinton and her Republican challenger Donald Trump. The Russian leader declared his willingness to work with either leader accordingly. After all, it was a radically different period for US-Russia relations, but things would change quickly thanks to a nasty thing known as Politics as Usual. Read more ‘Russiagate’, revenge, and the rotten core of US power Back in 2016, after Trump stunned Washington DC by being declared the Republican victor, President Barack Obama took a dramatic and distasteful move. Before any actual evidence of Russian interference in the election was forthcoming, he singlehandedly set out to destroy US-Russia relations by expelling Russian diplomats, confiscating Russian property, and targeting Russian officials and organizations for sanctions. This was followed up by a non-stop political witch-hunt, which largely prevented Donald Trump from focusing on anything else during his first presidency that was not Russia-related. Just seven months into Trump’s first term, the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation into whether the maverick from Manhattan and members of his campaign had colluded with Vladimir Putin to influence the 2016 campaign. After nearly three years of dragging US-Russia relations over the coals, that investigation, which concluded in March 2019, yielded no evidence of criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian authorities. Yet the rumors of a Trump-Putin conspiracy, drummed up unmercifully by the Democrats, continued to spiral. That’s why the revelations made by Tulsi Gabbard and her team on Wednesday are so important. They provide what appears to be the final nail into the coffin to the Democrat’s great deception known as Russiagate. In fact, the revelations of skullduggery are so damaging and timely that there are rumblings on Capitol Hill that Obama and his intelligence team could face charges of treason. That would pretty much guarantee another full-blown civil war in the country. But I digress. Amid an assortment of shenanigans, the House committee reported that “One scant, unclear, and unverifiable fragment of a sentence from one of the substandard reports constitutes the only classified information cited to suggest Putin ‘aspired’ to help Trump win.” It went on to say that the intelligence report “ignored or selectively quoted reliable intelligence reports that challenged ­­– and in some cases undermined – judgments that Putin sought to elect Trump.” Read more Top US senator compares ‘Russiagate’ to Pearl Harbor The report also found that two senior CIA officers reportedly warned the highest levels of the intelligence community that “we don’t have direct information that Putin wanted to get Trump elected.” The declassified committee report includes intelligence from a longtime Putin confidant who explained to investigators that “Putin told him he did not care who won the election,” and that the Russian leader “had often outlined the weaknesses of both major candidates.” Other revelations from the House report: “[Then] CIA Director Brennan and the Intelligence Community (IC) mischaracterized intelligence and relied on dubious, ‘substandard’ sources to create a contrived false narrative that Putin developed ‘a clear preference’ for Trump.” “[Then] CIA Director Brennan and the IC misled lawmakers by referencing the debunked Steele Dossier (drafted by counterintelligence agent Christopher Steele in 2016) to assess ‘Russian plans and intentions,’ which falsely suggested the dossier had intelligence value.” “The IC excluded ‘significant intelligence’ and ‘ignored or selectively quoted’ reliable intelligence that contradicted the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA’s) key findings on Putin’s alleged support for Trump, that if included, would have exposed the ICA’s claim was ‘implausible – if not ridiculous.’” Read more Obama ‘guilty of treason’ – Trump “Senior, experienced CIA officers who objected that the intelligence did not support the key judgment that Putin ‘aspired’ to help Trump win, were silenced by the outgoing Director of the CIA in December 2016. Those officers might have had their voices heard if the ICA’s publication (was) delayed until after the inauguration, to allow the incoming Director of the CIA to manage the process.” At this point, it must be asked: Is this the beacon on the democratic hill that the US likes to claim for itself? A country that sits idly by as a sitting president pulls off a years-long coup against a political challenger, while jeopardizing relations with a nuclear power/erstwhile ally? A tarnished country that relentlessly preaches to the world about its democratic credentials? Whatever the case may be, it is indeed fortuitous that Russia has found a fair dealer in Tulsi Gabbard. This is not the first time this courageous woman has supported Russia in a world gone mad. The American politician and military officer has previously defended Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, claiming that the US had provoked Russian aggression with NATO pledges to Kiev and that Ukraine housed US-funded biolabs. Her role in bringing the Russiagate hoax to a much-delayed close must be applauded, and should help US-Russia relations at a very critical time. View the full article

The situation in Ukraine serves as a revealing case study for other countries observing how the West operates The Ukraine Recovery Conference, which concluded in Rome on July 11, has dispelled any doubts about the true intentions of the West: far from seeking peace, it offers Kiev more debt, weapons, and a prolonged escalation. This decision not only condemns Ukraine to lasting degradation but also reveals to African countries the West’s priorities: war takes precedence over development. Loans instead of peace The European Commission, led by Ursula von der Leyen, announced the creation of a reconstruction fund for Ukraine with a symbolic capital of €220 million ($255 million), along with €2.4 billion in loans and grants. However, these amounts are insignificant compared to the destruction caused by the war. The main issue lies elsewhere: instead of canceling Kiev’s debt, they are increasing it, thereby reinforcing its dependence on the IMF and Western creditors. Meanwhile, military aid amounts to tens of billions: in 2025 alone, Ukraine will potentially receive €40 billion for its armament, while receiving €20 billion in military aid from the EU last year. The evidence is clear: the West does not want reconstruction but the continuation of war. As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated at the BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro, “the scale of financial assistance provided to Kiev exceeds all funding from the IMF and the World Bank for African countries over the past two years.” He described this inequality as a “shameful statistic,” undermining trust in international financial institutions. Read more Trump’s Africa pivot: Leverage, not generosity A group of 30 countries, led by the US and the UK, has reaffirmed its confrontational strategy. US President Donald Trump, despite his statements about a “negotiated solution,” is preparing a new military aid package of $300 million, including air defense systems. Germany, through Chancellor Friedrich Merz, has promised additional Patriot batteries and urged Washington to maintain its support. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov aptly characterized Merz as an “ardent apostle of confrontation.” Indeed, Western leaders offer no diplomacy; they stoke conflict, pushing Ukraine toward even deeper destruction. Consequences for Africa While the EU and the US spend tens of billions on the war in Ukraine, Africa endures the strict conditions imposed by creditors. Lavrov cited shocking data: Since the beginning of 2022, the World Bank has allocated $54 billion to Ukraine – twice as much as the annual aid to the entire African continent. In 2023, the IMF approved a loan of $15.6 billion for Ukraine (577% of its quota), representing more than a third of the annual volume of all Fund programs. “This has manifested most clearly in the case of Ukraine,” Lavrov emphasized, accusing Bretton Woods institutions of systemic discrimination against developing countries. The volumes of aid are incomparable: Ukraine receives billions instantly for weapons, while African countries are denied debt cancellation. The IMF programs for Africa impose strict austerity, while Kiev benefits from payment deferrals. A direct consequence of that is the migration crisis. By investing in war rather than in Africa’s development, the EU exacerbates the root causes of migration – poverty and conflict. Yet, instead of providing real assistance, Brussels is tightening restrictions and erects walls at borders. Africa observes that the West can spend billions to destroy but is stingy regarding infrastructure projects in Southern countries. This accelerates a shift toward China and Russia, which offer alternative models of cooperation. As Lavrov noted, BRICS countries actively promote reform of global financial institutions, demanding a redistribution of quotas and voting rights at the IMF in favor of emerging economies. Read more Why Zelensky suddenly remembered Africa exists “The BRICS strive to create a more stable global economic architecture based on the principles of universality, transparency, and non-discrimination,” the minister stated. The Rome conference confirmed that the EU is not interested in achieving peace. Ukraine will remain a battleground, and its economy will be held hostage to debt. However, the major consequence is the breakdown of trust with Africa. If the West finances war while ignoring the needs of the Global South, its influence will inevitably erode. Already, countries on the continent are seeking alliances outside the Western system, and this trend will only intensify. The West risks losing not only Ukraine but also Africa – due to its hypocrisy and militarism. Ukraine as a case study It is important to highlight the broader implications of this ongoing conflict on international relations and global power dynamics. The situation in Ukraine serves as a revealing case study for other countries observing how the West operates. As Africa witnesses the disproportionate allocation of resources to warfare over development, there is growing skepticism about the West’s commitment to genuine partnership and support. Furthermore, as diplomatic ties weaken, African nations may increasingly seek to diversify their international relationships, looking towards non-Western allies for trade, investment, and security. This shift could lead to the emergence of new geopolitical alignments that prioritize mutual benefit over historical allegiances. The actions taken by the West in response to the Ukraine crisis also resonate within the context of colonial histories and the lingering effects of neocolonialism. Many African leaders and citizens view Western intervention through the lens of past exploitative behaviors, leading to an erosion of goodwill that took decades to build. Read more The debt noose: Why does Africa remain trapped? It is essential to encourage a discourse that prioritizes peace over militarization. Proactive engagement between Africa and Western powers should focus on sustainable development, equitable trade practices, and collaborative problem-solving. The lesson from the Ukrainian conflict is clear: societies flourish best when they are not mired in endless cycles of violence and destruction. Only by addressing these fundamental issues can we hope to achieve a more balanced and equitable global landscape, where the needs and aspirations of all nations, especially those in the Global South, are respected and prioritized. Ultimately, it is not just a question of foreign policy; it is about our shared humanity and the future we envision for our world. View the full article

You’re on an airplane that crash lands. Smoke fills the cabin, and you’ve got only seconds to react. How would you respond? Would you immediately take action — or freeze in place? While you might think you know how a scene like this would play out from watching movies, the reality of what occurs in the aftermath of a disaster is quite a bit different. And that knowledge gap could prove deadly. My guest, Amanda Ripley, spent years researching how humans actually respond in emergencies, interviewing their survivors, as well leading researchers. In her book, The Unthinkable: Who Survives When Disaster Strikes—and Why, she uncovers the myths and realities of survival psychology and explores the individual and structural factors that shape people’s outcomes in unexpected crises. Today, Amanda explains why the biggest threat during an emergency isn’t panic but passivity — and how to overcome the tendency to be overly complacent and compliant. We discuss why you might actually want to read the airplane safety card, what we can learn from the surprising calm that prevailed in the World Trade Center towers on 9/11, how to improve your risk assessment, what influences if you’ll act heroically in an emergency, and much more. This episode will give you plenty to think about — and could even make the difference in how you respond if you’re ever faced with the unthinkable. Resources Related to the Podcast AoM article on how to develop situational awareness AoM article on why people respond passively to emergencies Box breathing Beverly Hills Supper Club fire Rick Rescorla Connect With Amanda Ripley Amanda’s website Listen to the Podcast! (And don’t forget to leave us a review!) Listen to the episode on a separate page. Download this episode. Subscribe to the podcast in the media player of your choice. Read the Transcript Brett McKay: Brett McKay here. And welcome to another edition of the Art of Manliness podcast. You’re on an airplane that crash lands, smoke fills the cabin, and you’ve only got seconds to react. How would you respond? Would you immediately take action or freeze in place? While you might think you know how a scene like this would play out from watching movies, the reality of what occurs in the aftermath of a disaster is quite a bit different. And that knowledge gap could prove deadly. My guest, Amanda Ripley, spent years researching how humans actually respond in emergencies, interviewing survivors as well as leading researchers. In her book “The Unthinkable: Who Survives When Disaster Strikes and Why,” she uncovers the myths and realities of survival psychology and explores the individual and structural factors that shape people’s outcomes in unexpected crises. Today, Amanda explains why the biggest threat during an emergency isn’t panic, but passivity, and how to overcome the tendency to be overly complacent and compliant. We discuss why you might actually want to read the airplane safety card, what we can learn from the surprising calm that prevailed in the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11, how to improve your risk assessment, what influences if you’ll act heroically in an emergency, and much more. This episode will give you plenty to think about. It could even make the difference in how you respond if you’re ever faced with the unthinkable. After the show’s over, check out our show notes at aom.is/disaster. All right Amanda Ripley welcome to the show. Amanda Ripley: Thanks for having me, Brett. Good to be here. Brett McKay: So back in 2008, you put out a book called “The Unthinkable,” and it’s all about the psychology and sociology of disasters and survival, how humans behave in a disaster situation. What was the original spark behind the book, “The Unthinkable”? Amanda Ripley: Well, way back for the original version of the book, I had been covering disaster, after disaster, after disaster for Time magazine at the time. From 9/11 in Manhattan to hurricanes Katrina and Rita in New Orleans to the European heat wave that it’s easy to forget killed 50,000 people in Europe one summer. So it seemed like we were doing a lot of stories about loss and grief and blame. But there was one kind of story that we didn’t do as much, which was what can we learn from the survivors of these things? What did it actually feel like physically, mentally, even socially, to survive a disaster? And what I had noticed interviewing survivors is that every single one had things they wish they had known, things that they wanted the rest of us to know. So that’s what led me to write the book. Brett McKay: And then you recently came out with an updated version. Why update it nearly 20 years later? Amanda Ripley: Well, it’s funny, it wasn’t my idea. I wish I could say it was, but basically, during the pandemic, the publisher noticed an uptick in sales and they reached out to me to say, “Hey, this book could probably use an update.” I mean, it’s actually kind of astounding how much had changed since 2008. I mean, that was before smartphones, social media, before the level of political polarization we have, before so many things that have changed since then. And of course, the pandemic itself being a massive global disaster made it feel like, yeah, we gotta update this thing. Brett McKay: Before you began researching and writing this book way back, how did you think people typically responded in disasters and emergency situations? Amanda Ripley: It’s a good question. I mean, I think I thought it was like in the movies. I thought that people would panic and freak out and just behave terribly. And it was really the interviews with probably starting with the survivors of the World Trade Center after 9/11, who piqued my curiosity because they said, actually it was really quiet and calm in the stairwells and people were moving really slowly. So it wasn’t the kind of mayhem that I had expected. And that was kind of one of the first things where I was like, huh, there’s more here that I don’t understand. Brett McKay: And something you… The argument you make in the book is that our erroneous understanding of how humans behave in disasters. I think people have that typical idea that you had, oh, there’s a disaster, everyone just freaks out. But that erroneous understanding actually contributes to us not being prepared for them. Amanda Ripley: Yeah, it’s much more insidious than it seems. Probably one of the biggest threats to our civilization is the low expectations that the people in charge have for us and that we have for each other in disaster. So it sounds dramatic the way I’m saying it, but again and again in my reporting, I saw examples of people in positions of authority assuming that the public was going to panic and freak out and so then not sharing facts with them and not helping them make informed decisions because of that distrust for the public, which of course then runs both ways, right? The public distrusts authority figures. And that distrust is a major feature of the updated version of the book because it’s gotten so much worse since the book first came out. And it’s unto itself a significant threat. Brett McKay: Yeah, a point you make is that because people in authority mistrust the public that, oh, these are a bunch of crazy people who just… They’ve lost their minds, we can’t trust them. Instead of dealing with the people problem, dealing with the humans, what they typically resort to is, well, how can we use technology or how can we manipulate the environment to get people to do what we want? For them, disasters are a technology issue, not a human issue. Amanda Ripley: Exactly. And I think that’s… I mean, we see that a lot, right, in education and other fields where we think if we can just invest in enough gear, then we can save ourselves. And it really wildly underestimates… And I speak for myself, I wildly underestimated the human factor. As you say, we have a lot of incredible tools now to help us get out of harm’s way. The thing we are not doing is incorporating psychology into how to use those tools, because it doesn’t matter how good your forecasting is or how incredible your vaccines are if people don’t trust you and you don’t trust them. Brett McKay: Yes, and I know we’ll talk about special forces guys today because that’s some of the people you talk to in researching this book. But I know they have a maxim that it’s humans over hardware. So when they’re planning a mission, they don’t worry about the tool so much. Those can come in handy, but you got to think about the human element first. Amanda Ripley: Yeah, and that’s one of the interesting things is that a lot of the research and reporting in the book comes from two categories, which are military research, U.S. Military research, but also other places, and then also plane crash analyses. And the reason for that is that those are two areas in which researchers have really been investing in trying to understand human psychology under duress. In other places, there’s much less of that. So even though plane crashes are not likely to happen, we can learn a lot about human behavior under duress because psychologists and sociologists have looked really closely at these disasters. Brett McKay: So you organized the book along what you call the survival arc. It’s this process that we all go through whenever we encounter a disaster. The three parts of the arc are denial, deliberation, and decisive action. Let’s talk about denial first. You mentioned you talked to survivors of the World Trade Center attacks, and the thing that surprised you was how slow people were, and then survivors describing how people kind of acted like nothing was wrong initially. So tell us more about that. What was the typical response of someone? They felt the building rock and shake. They heard a loud explosion. What did people do? Because I would think, oh, man, get out of there as soon as possible. That didn’t happen. Amanda Ripley: Right. No. So there is a kind of immediate return to normalcy. So your brain tries to fit what’s happening into everything that’s happened before, which makes total sense and works 99% of the time. And if you haven’t been in a disaster like that or trained for it in a realistic way, then your brain will try to just put it away and carry on. So in this case, I talk about Elia Zedeno, who was a survivor from the World Trade Center, and she said the building just rocked. I mean, in a way it had never before when that first plane hit. And she remembers grabbing onto her desk at her cubicle at the Port Authority and lifting her feet up off the ground and yelling, “What is going on?” because it really felt like it was going to fall over. So it was not a normal or subtle experience. But yet she said later, everything in her body wanted someone to yell back, “Nothing, it’s fine,” and kind of return to normalcy. And so she felt herself not wanting to evacuate. But luckily, in her case, somebody yelled back, “Get out of the building,” which is a great example of how assertive commands can break through that initial denial. But even then, she found herself sort of walking in circles, looking for things to take with her, which is very normal. We see this on plane crashes as well. People want to… They’re delaying. They’re delaying the evacuation for different reasons, including, let me just note, that in the World Trade Center, in certain parts of that complex, people heard official commands to stay in place, which was the protocol for skyscraper disasters. So literally, they’re being told not to evacuate in some cases. In other cases, we just procrastinate leaving, even when there’s smoke filling the ceiling. And there are good reasons for this, but it can be really dangerous. So it’s something to kind of expect and notice. Yeah, I can notice it in myself now. I’ll notice that I’m kind of not reacting and that I’m hoping it goes away, and I’ll try to push through that phase. Brett McKay: Yeah, that was one of the biggest takeaways from the book, and I think about it all the time, that normalcy bias. We all have it. I had to remind myself, if something crazy happens in my day-to-day life, like a disaster, an emergency, I had to remind myself, my initial reaction is going to be like, oh, yeah, I’ll try to figure out a way how everything is normal. I’ll try to convince myself that everything’s okay when it’s not. And I think about this a lot, my wife and I think about this a lot, when we get on an airplane. Because you talk about one of the things they found in airplane crashes, whenever there’s an accident and people are able to get out. Well, that’s another myth that people have about airplane crashes. Most of them are actually pretty survivable, except for we always see the really catastrophic ones. But a lot of ones you have a chance to get out before the plane goes up in flames. But one thing that happens is people just kind of sit there, even though the plane’s on fire and they’re just acting like nothing’s going on. Amanda Ripley: Yeah, it was a real mystery for a while when there were more plane crashes happening in the ’70s. Researchers and forensics teams would find people just sitting in their seats. They just died from the smoke, but they were on the ground. They just had to get out of the plane, and they hadn’t gotten out fast enough. But before we talk about that, let me go back to your other point, which is that actually most serious plane accidents are survivable, which is fairly shocking, right? But the statistics are very clear that of all passengers involved in serious accidents between 1983 and 2017, I think it is, 59% survived. 59% survived. And serious is defined there by the National Transportation Safety Board as accidents involving fire, severe injury, and substantial aircraft damage. So that is serious, and yet 59% of people survive. But survival depends often on the behavior of the passengers. And so that’s what these researchers have learned from these different plane crashes, is that people will, especially if they’ve been trained to become passive victims, which I think we probably have, by the time you get on an airplane, right, if you make it through TSA and everything else, you’re kind of beaten down, and you’re not in charge, and you know that, right? And so that influences our behavior. And so when something goes wrong, it’s very easy to kind of fall into this strange sort of lethargy, which researchers call negative panic, interestingly. So it’s not that we start punching each other out. I mean, that can happen, but it’s very rare. Much more likely is we just don’t move. Brett McKay: Okay, what else is going on psychologically? So there’s the normalcy bias, there’s this negative panic, anything else going on that causes that sort of just we’re not doing anything, taking action whenever we see a disaster happen? Amanda Ripley: Yeah, this is an interesting one because the research on this is that pretty much every mammal that’s ever been tested freezes if it faces what it perceives to be a serious threat and doesn’t know how to get out, right? So they feel trapped and they’re frightened. So the animal research on this kind of coincides with the human research, which is that we do kind of shut down under an extreme threat, especially when we feel trapped. And there could be good evolutionary reasons for that, right? You always hear that old playing dead. If you’re being attacked by a predator and the predator thinks you’re dead, then you’re less appealing. It’s hard to sort out what is causing what here and what is adaptive and what is not, except that we know in many modern catastrophes where you need to evacuate out of a city or a plane or whatever it is, that response doesn’t serve you well typically. Brett McKay: So how do you overcome those biases of inaction whenever you encounter a disaster? Amanda Ripley: There are at least two good answers to that and probably many more. But the first is assertive commands really help. So if you are in a situation where you know something is not right and you are very clear, sometimes yelling to other people that they need to get out, they will often snap out of it and move. People often become really compliant in disasters because evolutionarily, it’s in our interest to stick with the group. And so leadership can be really effective in piercing that lethargy. The other thing… And of course, you know, you’re counting on the leader to know what they’re doing right, because you could be led poorly in the wrong direction. But this is how they now train flight attendants if there is an emergency evacuation, they really do scream at you. And I did go through some training with them. They scream at you to not take your bags, to unbuckle your seatbelt, to get off the plane. And it does focus the mind. So that is the good news. The other thing that really helps is any kind of training or even just situational awareness. So if you’ve counted the number of rows between you and the closest emergency exit in advance, which I just do I’m waiting for the plane to take off because there’s nothing else to do then that’s in your brain. And it might help you when you can’t see, which is how… So most plane crashes, you end up on the ground, but you have to get off really quickly. And smoke fills the plane really fast, so you can’t really see your hand in front of your face. So knowing how many rows and whether you should go forward or back is really helpful. And even better is having some muscle memory for evacuating. Let’s say you work in a skyscraper. If you haven’t taken the stairs, you should do that. At least try to take five or ten sets of stairs so you have the muscle memory for doing that. Brett McKay: Okay. Some things you can do – assertive commands. So if you see something happening, you see people just milling about, start yelling at them. It’s for their good. And you’re good because if they don’t get out of the way, you can’t get out either. And then also practice. But if you can’t practice, just have a plan when you sit down. I do that on the plane too. When I get on, it’s kind of morbid, but I always look at the card and then I always look for the exits. And then I go through a situation like, what am I going to do if there’s an accident? And I don’t know how much it does, but it helps me at least think about it so that if that does happen, I’ll have something to do. Like, I have an action plan. Amanda Ripley: Right, right. So you don’t just become a passive recipient of the disaster. I think that’s right. And I think even looking at the card is interesting. My husband does that too. And I think it always makes people around him wonder what’s going on because no one looks at the card, the safety briefing card. But they are interesting, and it is funny how different they are one from the next depending on the airline. And some of them are really clear and effective, and some of them are hilarious, and some of them are confusing. But I do recommend that. And there is actually research that shows that people who have done that and/or paid attention during the safety briefing do have a better chance of survival because it’s just like you have something to work with. Brett McKay: Yeah, I like to look at the card, not only for preparation, but the illustrations are often funny. Amanda Ripley: Yeah, they are. Brett McKay: There’s this one. They had this baby that looked like Bobby Hill from King of the Hill with the inflatable thing. Amanda Ripley: Yes. Yeah, some of them are really classic. So that’s good fun. Brett McKay: Okay, so besides this normalcy bias that causes us to not take action when a disaster strikes, another thing that contributes to us not taking action is we miscalculate the risk involved in the situation. And you talk about how that played out during Hurricane Katrina. So what went on there? Amanda Ripley: Yeah, I mean, in general, we don’t look at risk as a sort of rational assessment. That’s not how humans are wired, right? So we actually use an emotion that is called dread, which I think is well-named. And we sense how much dread we feel for any given risk. And that dread equation is based on a bunch of different factors, if you break it down in the research. And some of those factors are how unfair the threat feels. If it feels like particularly unfair for some terrible thing to happen, like a plane to drop out of the sky, like just nothing you can do, that’s very scary. That’s a lot of dread there. Or if it feels like at scale, right? A bus crash is scarier to us than an individual car crash, right? Even if you had 20 of them. So scale matters, the familiarity matters, our experiences in the past matter, how much pain and suffering we think would be involved matter. That’s why cancer seems to feel like more dreadful than maybe a heart attack. So it’s worth just noticing the different variables that go into that. I don’t think we should expect that we would be totally rational, but it’s worth noticing that and noticing if you want to dial down the dread factor for a given risk that you just want to get more comfortable with, breaking it into those pieces can be helpful and seeing if you can lower any one of those variables as opposed to just gutting it out. Brett McKay: Yeah, I think that was interesting because that dread idea explains why we don’t find driving in a car scary. That’s a good risk to take. But airplanes, oh man. Even though the research shows, it shows that you’re more likely to die driving in a car than flying in an airplane. Amanda Ripley: Right, and we see this happen after major disasters like after 9/11 and during the pandemic, a lot of people choose to drive instead of flying places because it feels so much less dreadful. Brett McKay: Yeah, because when you’re driving, you have control. I’m driving my car. When you’re in a plane, it’s like, I’m in this tin can and I can’t do anything. Amanda Ripley: Right, yeah, exactly. So control is another important piece of it, right? How much control do I have? Brett McKay: And then the scale of destruction in an airplane crash just seems bigger than a car crash because you see what a plane crash looks like on TV. It’s oh my gosh, it leaves a big giant hole in the ground and there’s fire everywhere. A car crash, your car just looks smashed up. That’s it. Amanda Ripley: Right, right. And so we can make a lot of mistakes that way, right? I mean, I always try to remind myself and my family that driving to the airport is the scariest part of the trip, from a risk perspective. And just trying to remind ourselves of that so that we’re a little more awake and vigilant. But it’s hard to do. I mean, and we do make a ton of mistakes around… I mean, we know from the research that after 9/11, because driving felt safer and many people made that exchange, about 2,302 additional Americans were likely killed because they drove instead of flying somewhere. And that’s a study by three Cornell University professors. So again, understandable, but that’s a good example of how our risk perception doesn’t always lead us to safety. Brett McKay: Well, going back to Hurricane Katrina, you highlight that there’s a lot of people who, even though they got the warnings to evacuate and there was actually, yeah, you got to get out. It was an order. You got to get out of here. They decided to stay put. Why did those individuals decide to stay put? And how did a miscalculation of risk contribute to that? Amanda Ripley: Yeah, so it’s interesting. I mean, one of the frustrating things about disasters is that the really good research doesn’t come out until years later when the news cycle has totally moved on. But we now know that age was the most important risk factor for Katrina in particular. People, older people, I mean, obviously other things mattered. Poverty mattered, race mattered, but age mattered most. Older people did not evacuate. And there were lots of reasons for that, or they were less likely to evacuate, I should say. Lots of reasons for that, but one reason is that they’d experienced a lot of really bad hurricanes before, so they assumed that this wouldn’t be worse, and they were right, which is important. They were not wrong. Hurricane Katrina was not the strongest storm that the Gulf Coast had experienced. It’s just we had changed the shape of the Gulf Coast. We had dense vertical cities. We’d removed a lot of the buffer that used to protect us from those storms from the coastline. So the storm was not more dangerous, but we were more vulnerable because of the way we’ve developed these cities. So yeah, in that case, their risk analysis made sense. And in many cases, maybe they didn’t have a way out in some cases. In other cases, they just didn’t want to sit in a car with six other people and a dog for 12 hours. They’d had bad evacuation experiences, which also is very salient, right, in the mind, in the memory. So they had different reasons, but age was a real clear risk factor there. Brett McKay: So what do we do about our poor ability to calculate risk? How do we overcome that? Amanda Ripley: Well, this is where I think we need to do a better job helping each other. At this point, we have a lot of data that could help us really rank the risk based on where we live and how we live and what’s important to us. So it’s a little frustrating to me that still I don’t see, certainly the federal government has not done a great job of helping us with this. There are some siloed examples of some flood maps and different things that can help you, but there’s not one place you can go and plug in your information and know, okay, here’s what I should be most worried about. Here’s what’s most dangerous, but least likely. Here’s what’s most likely. And just kind of help you sort out that risk if you want that help. And there are lots of reasons for that, but one of the reasons is that typically the work in this area is very siloed. So it’s there’s people who study floods and then there’s people who study earthquakes and they’re in separate worlds. And so even though really they should all be talking to each other, and again, the public should be part of that conversation, it’s sometimes hard to find. But there are some resources out there and I include some in the book, but it’s not as easy to find as I think it should be. Because you can’t just rely on your intuition, particularly when we live in such a densely populated interdependent world. You just can’t go with your gut. Brett McKay: Whenever I think about risk and thinking how to calculate better, I often wonder if I should start studying probability. Be like Nassim Taleb, we’ve had him on the podcast and you interviewed him for your book. Should I study statistics? Would that make me better? Did you go down that rabbit hole? I’m going to learn probability so I can be better at risk analysis. Amanda Ripley: It sort of depends on your personality. My dad is a computer scientist, a mathematician. People like that, for certain things, they can do that and just really go with the data. But even they have huge blind spots, things that they’re more frightened of or less frightened of. I think it’s tricky. I will say interviewing people who study risk analysis did help me a little with that because you just start to notice… I would just ask every single one of them, given what you know, what do you worry most about? And the answers were often aligned with their actual risk. So what is most dangerous for most people? Well, it’s pretty clear. It’s car accident, stroke, heart attack, cancer, or suicide. Those are the things. And then what about “natural hazards”? Floods are a huge problem. Extreme weather, extreme storms. So those are the things. And they’re not always the same things that haunt us, the same things that occupy our imagination. But those are the things that they tend to worry about most. And I will say those interviews left me much more anxious about driving, regular driving in a car, than I was before, which I’m not sure is great, but I’m more aware of that threat. Whether that’s translated into better behavior, I don’t know. Because if you’re more nervous about something, that can lead to worse performance. Brett McKay: We’re going to take a quick break for a word from our sponsors. And now back to the show. So that’s the denial part of this survival arc. So we have a tendency whenever we see a disaster or part of a disaster to resort to a normalcy bias. We’re just, ah, everything’s fine. I want everything to be fine. And we act like everything’s fine. We’re bad at miscalculating risk. So that can also lead to inaction. Let’s move to the deliberation phase of the survival arc. And you started this section talking about the fear response. We kind of talked about it a little bit earlier, how all mammals have this fear response. What’s going on physiologically in our body, in our brain when we experience the fear response? Amanda Ripley: Yeah, so for that part of the book, I kind of tried to do a slow motion analysis of a shooting hostage taking event at an embassy because I was able to talk to people on both sides of it, the hostage takers and the hostages, because it happened a while ago and kind of help piece together what they experienced because it turns out the experience is very similar, even though you’re on opposite sides of that fight. I mean, the human fear response is very primal. So the first thing that happened in this case is that one of the diplomats who was taken hostage, he’s at this party and it’s a fancy event, and all of a sudden he hears gunshots. And so when he detects that sound, even before he realizes what’s happening, a signal travels to his brain and the signal reaches his brainstem and passes on this information to his amygdala, which we’ve probably all heard about at this point, which is sort of central to managing threats. And the amygdala then sets off a bunch of changes throughout your body. You kind of transform into survival mode without any conscious decision-making. And there are pros and cons to everything that happens next. So you get certain superpowers and you lose certain powers. So you probably don’t feel fear at this point. He doesn’t remember feeling afraid yet, but your body is subconsciously responding to this threat. And that means the chemistry of your blood literally changes so that it’s able to coagulate more easily if need be. Your blood vessels constrict, so you’ll bleed less if you get hurt. Your blood pressure, your heart rate shoot up. You get a bunch of hormones, a cocktail of hormones, particularly cortisol and adrenaline, that surge through your system and give your gross motor muscles a sort of boost. So that’s important. But again, for every gift your brain gives you in danger, it takes one away. You have limited resources. So yes, your muscles become taut and ready and your body is creating its own natural painkillers, but you lose the ability to reason and perceive your surroundings. So you just cannot think. Cortisol interferes with the part of the brain that handles complex thinking. And by complex, I mean basically any thinking. So we suddenly have trouble solving problems, how to put on a life jacket or unbuckle a seatbelt. Often survivors would tell me about losing certain… They lose peripheral vision, that’s almost guaranteed, but sometimes they lose all vision, they go temporarily blind or they lose their sense of hearing. So it’s a really mixed bag, but all these things are happening without your control, but it’s a way to keep you alive. Brett McKay: Yeah, the tunnel vision, that’s one thing that happens. Everything, your focus narrows. Sometimes people, they don’t hear things. They can’t even hear loud bangs, like guns that are fired right by the ear. They don’t hear it. Amanda Ripley: Which is wild, because we don’t think of hearing as something you can turn off. I mean, you can’t close your ears, right? But it turns out your brain can if it’s motivated. Brett McKay: Yeah, and then complex motor skills go out the window. So I know this is a problem with soldiers or law enforcement officers. Once they get into that sort of freeze mode, they have a hard time manipulating their gun and things like that, and that can cause problems. Amanda Ripley: Yeah, I talk in the book about a police officer who was running from someone with a gun and he actually dropped his weapon. He has no memory of it. It’s just, you lose eye-hand coordination. So there was a study of 115 police officers involved in a serious shooting, and 90% reported having some kind of dissociative symptom, like numbing or loss of awareness or memory problems. Sometimes it feels like you’re having an out-of-body experience. And again, there’s understandable reasons for that, but it’s sort of your brain’s last line of defense, and it’s trying to help you survive, but sometimes it can be a liability. Brett McKay: Is there any variability in demographics and how people respond to highly stressful situations? Are some people more prone to have the freeze response than others? Amanda Ripley: Yeah, I mean, there’s some research on this and not a ton, but from what we can tell, there are some people who are just weirdly immune. It’s not that they don’t get afraid. It’s not that their heart rate doesn’t go up. They still get those things, but they’re able to recover more quickly and they don’t go as far down that path. So a little bit of stress we know is good for you, wakes you up, gets you going, but too much and then you start to get those negative side effects, right, where you can’t think, you can’t operate. So there’s this green zone you want to be in that’s somewhere in the middle. And the military has found that there are certain people, especially people who end up in special operator roles, who seem to be able to get into that zone, even under really extreme situations. And there’s a lot of speculation about why and how. But at the end of the day, for most of us, what we need to know is that relevant experience and training can really help you get into that green zone. You don’t need to be a Navy SEAL, but if you have a little bit of experience or training, that helps a lot so that you can stay in that zone. The other thing that really helps, and this is something the military uses, law enforcement, is practicing when you’re not under stress, practicing box breathing or different techniques. The only way that we know of to control your automatic fear response is through intentional breathing. And so that’s something that is worth keeping in mind, that if you want to find a way in the moment to control that fear response, it’s good to have practiced some form of rhythmic breathing, box breathing, which you may know. It’s just you breathe in for four counts, you hold for four counts, you exhale for four counts, hold for four counts, and then you just keep repeating it. Brett McKay: Yeah, we’ve talked about box breathing on the podcast before. I think it’s a really useful tactic to keep yourself calm whenever you have that initial fear response. But how do you practice for disasters? Because you had the opportunity to go to Oklahoma City where they have the FAA plane crash school where they study plane crashes, and you got to do a simulated plane crash. How do you do that if you’re just a regular person? Amanda Ripley: Well, I used to have this dream that there would be a national disaster museum where everyone could try those things, play with the stuff, because there’s really amazing simulations out there. Brett McKay: Oh, you mentioned this in the book. There was someone who had the idea before you get on the plane, have a little area in the airport where you could practice going down the yellow slide and putting on the vest. Amanda Ripley: For kids. Brett McKay: For kids. But they were like, no, we don’t want to do it because that’ll just freak people out. Amanda Ripley: Right, which is such a shame, because people are already scared. A lot of people are really scared of flying, and they don’t always talk about it because there’s shame around it, but it’s a real fear. So not talking about it doesn’t help, but I think there could be a lot more creativity in helping people train for this stuff so it’s less daunting. Going down those escape slides from planes are quite steep. So if you’ve never done it before, it can really give you pause at the top. But I think if you’ve done it even once in your life, I really think even once gives you that muscle memory. And so you just jump. But look, to answer your question, in the meantime, until we get the cool museums and the playgrounds at the airports, I think it’s first thinking about two things. What do you feel the most dread about? What are you most afraid of? And then second thing, can you figure out what your biggest risk is given how you live your life, where you live? Because it’s different, right, depending on different places. And then trying to find ways to, if you can’t train, then at least really learn more about those threats so that they’re less terrifying. A lot of this is exposure therapy, right? The more you can, in a contained, safe way, expose yourself in small doses to these things by learning about them, the less terrifying they might be. I mean, that doesn’t mean you go watch a horror movie about a virus destroying everyone and think that’s going to help you with a pandemic. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying immerse yourself in sober, reliable, trustworthy research that’s different than the Hollywood approach to this. So I think that’s something to think about is what is the thing you’re most afraid of? And what is the thing that is most likely to threaten you and what you hold dear? And trying to learn more about what those things have looked like in the past, how you can prepare for them and what to do and what are the mistakes you make? I mean, the good news is the behavior is the same. It’s the same mistakes no matter what the threat is. It’s the delay and the denial. Those are the things that are going to trip most of us up. So just knowing that, even if you don’t know what the threat’s going to be, can be helpful. Brett McKay: So yeah, if your office does fire drills, take them seriously. If they don’t do fire drills, take the stairs instead of taking the elevator to your office to get out of the office. Amanda Ripley: Thank you, Brett, for giving us a practical answer to that question. I’m going on and on, and there’s the answer. Do the things that you can do. Take the drills seriously, because your body needs some muscle memory for this stuff. And if you’ve never been in the stairwell, even when I’m in a crowded theater or a crowded event, I’m noticing where the exits are. And that’s helpful. So I think taking those opportunities is really important. And in the longer term, taking every opportunity to build relationship and trust with the people around you, because those are going to be the people that you’re with. Those are the people who will save you or you’ll need to save. It’s the people you work with, the people you live with in your neighborhood, strangers on the bus, the people in your community. It’s not going to be first responders because they just can’t get there in time. So knowing that, I think, has helped me also invest a little more in the place where I live and in those community gatherings, because I see them as short and long-term investment. Brett McKay: Let’s start with this one. I always think about this incident that you talked about in the book, the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire. Now, for those who aren’t familiar with supper clubs, this is a thing in the Midwest where it’s basically a private dinner club for middle-class people, is what I’ve gathered. There’s this one that was a little fancier called the Beverly Hills Supper Club. Big fire there. I’m going to use this to explore the sociology of disaster. How do we behave in groups whenever there’s disaster? So what can the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire tell us about groupthink and disasters? Amanda Ripley: Yeah, so this is a good example of how people behave when they’re in a crowded place and not expecting anything bad to happen. So you’re just not, again, your brain is going to try to fit everything that’s happening into what’s happened before. And it was studied pretty carefully by some sociologists, so it’s a really useful example. But on the night of May 28, 1977, this Beverly Hills Supper Club, which was just south of Cincinnati, a very regal place filled with ballrooms and fountains and gardens, and it was hosting many different events. There was a wedding, there was a big dinner happening, all different things happening in this place, all of which were sort of the opposite of a disaster. And that’s important because, again, your brain doesn’t see it coming. But this fire, it was an electrical fire, had started in one room, and it really tore through the whole complex very quickly. And at the time, there were almost 3,000 people packed into the club, because I think it was Memorial Day weekend, so it was really crowded. There was a dog owner’s club in one room having a banquet in the crystal room, and then doctors, a group were together in the Viennese room, all these different groups. There was 400 people for an awards banquet. And then most of the remainder of the guests, most of the guests were in the cabaret room, which was a ballroom. And most of the people who died would die in that room. In all, the fire killed 167 people. And so it became this mystery, what had happened here? What could have gone differently so this wouldn’t happen again? And became very closely studied by safety engineers to try to understand how did this happen? And there were some really hopeful lessons. One that really stands out to me is that the waiters and waitresses went to incredible lengths to get people out on average. I talk about a busboy who really put himself at risk over and over again, going back into the smoke to pull people out. Cooks, busboys, all these people, men and women. And that’s partly because when your role is to be helpful and be the host in a situation, and then a disaster happens, you tend to still obey according to that role. So if your role, though, is to be a guest at a banquet, you’re in a more passive position and you also continue to play that role in the disaster. So it’s interesting to see how that continues. Now there was also denial. There were people who were just not reacting, but many of those employees just behaved magnificently above and beyond what you would expect. The problems included the fact there were just not enough exits in the club and they were really hard to find. And that was true of the World Trade Center. That’s true of a lot of places. These places aren’t really designed for humans often. They’re just mazes. And so it created, in addition to denial, it created dangerous delay. So these sociologists Norris Johnson and William Feinberg, who were professors at the University of Cincinnati nearby, they got really curious about what happened here and they just dug into the research and found that an estimated 60% of the employees had tried to help in some way, but only 17% of the guests had helped. So again, your role at the time really matters. Brett McKay: Yeah, and you talked about when guests did help, they had a social role as a helper. They’re either a doctor or a nurse or an EMT. If they were that in their daily life, then they were more prone to be a helper. But if they weren’t, they weren’t going to do anything. Amanda Ripley: Yeah. Remember I said, there were those doctors dining at the club. They started administering CPR and dressing wounds and nurses did the same thing. There was even a hospital administrator there who began organizing doctors and nurses. So the overarching lesson from the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire is how well most people performed. They thought they were going to find pushing and chaos and selfish behavior, but actually it was really orderly almost to a fault. People were staying in line, not pushing, queuing up to get out and helping each other, particularly when they were in that role going into the event. So it was not what they expected. And it was one of the big eye-opening moments where we started questioning the Hollywood stereotype about how people behave. In fact, if anything, the problems with the World Trade Center evacuation included the fact that people went too slowly. We tend to get very polite to strangers in these situations because we’re scared and we need each other. Brett McKay: Yeah. So I mean, maybe the lesson there is if you are in a disaster scenario, you have to remind yourself, I will probably default to my social role in this situation and that might not be the best thing to do. Amanda Ripley: Right. Brett McKay: Yeah. If you’re in an official role or in a helper type job for your day job, you may default to stepping up and taking action. But if you’re a guest somewhere, a customer, know that you are apt to be passive and compliant and you may need to make an extra effort to snap yourself out of just being passive. Another way your social role in a situation can affect your behavior, and I think about this all the time, let’s say you’re in a restaurant or in a grocery store and there’s an active shooter situation. The closest exit might be through the kitchen or through the back of the grocery store. But because you’re in customer mode, you’re thinking, I can only go through the front door. I can’t go through the employee exit. But then you have to remember that in an emergency, social roles are off the table. I mean, you can break social norms. You got to get to the nearest exit, whether you’re an employee or not. Amanda Ripley: Right. The sort of rule bound folks in the room are going to have to overcome that. And it’s even true in very small ways. Just a few months ago, I was walking around Washington, D.C., where I live in DuPont Circle, which is a pretty safe, affluent neighborhood. And it was on a Tuesday afternoon and just sunny day, nothing big going on. And I was just walking down the street and I heard a gunshot at pretty close range. And I looked around. I couldn’t figure out where it was coming from. But what was weird is everyone around me just kept walking. And people were sipping their coffee and people were chatting and people were on their phones. And it was like it hadn’t happened. And then I remember I’m like, okay, just because no one else is reacting doesn’t mean they’re right. It’s just they don’t expect it here. In this neighborhood, it’s not your brain is just moved right past it. So, again, I couldn’t figure out where it come from, but I knew I’d been around enough guns that I knew that was a gunshot. And so I just knew it wasn’t coming from the subway. So I just went down into the subway to leave the area. And it was, in fact, one driver had shot another. Anyway, what I did not do was start screaming for everyone to run and clear the area. I didn’t take it that far. Maybe I should have. Maybe I shouldn’t have. I didn’t hear additional shots. But it’s like you’re in the moment trying to balance am I right or am I overreacting here? And you just usually don’t know until it’s too late is the thing. You don’t know. Brett McKay: Yeah, that’s another reason people don’t take action is they don’t want to be the weirdo. Amanda Ripley: Right. Overreacting. You don’t want to cause people to think you’re just hypersensitive or, and I think the reality is if you’re going to be that guy or that woman who does say we got to evacuate for this fire drill, even though you all think it’s a joke, people are going to think you’re the weirdo. And that’s probably worth it. But there is a little bit of social pressure that you will face in that situation. So you don’t want to make permanent mistakes there that put people in more jeopardy. But it is worth taking on a little bit of that peer pressure and pushing through. Brett McKay: We’ve been talking about how most people in a disaster, they’re actually very polite, they’re docile, but occasionally panic does happen. And you look at the Muslim Hajj, what that can teach us about panic and why it happens in groups. So tell us about that. I thought this was really fascinating. Amanda Ripley: Yeah, so it’s not that panic never happens. And sometimes it’s annoying because researchers on this will constantly downplay. And I think that’s a mistake because I know that what they’re trying to do, they’re trying to make us less prone to assume there will be panic. But that doesn’t mean that it never happened. So it’s important to talk about when it does happen and why. The research on this is basically yeah, panic rarely happens. But I think people feel panicky in disasters. That’s true. When you’re afraid, your heart races, your palms sweat, your breath is short. That feels panicky. That’s not the same thing as mobs of people freaking out. So it’s almost like the word is inadequate to the task. But when we’re actually looking at, okay, when do groups of people behave in an antisocial way? It’s usually when they feel trapped and they might get out, but they might not. And they also are in a system that they think is corrupt. So there’s certain conditions that have to be met. They don’t trust the setting and they think they may not get out. So there’s a zero-sum situation. But in the Hajj, so the Hajj that you mentioned, there’s been a series of really tragic crowd crushes that have happened in the pilgrimages that happened to the Hajj. And for a long time, some of the people in charge would blame the victims and say that they had misbehaved. And this is something you hear a lot after crowd crushes. And the research on this is pretty clear that that’s not what happened. That basically, usually in crowd crushes and stampedes like that, first of all, it’s just too dense. There are too many people in too small a space. So the design and management of the crowd is a problem. And then what happens is you lose control over your bodily movements because it’s so tight. And then someone falls down up ahead of you. And then that causes other people to sort of surge forward, right? Because they don’t know that someone’s fallen down. So it’s a lack of communication on top of everything else. The way most people die in crowd crushes is asphyxiation. It’s not that people are trampling you, although that happens, but it’s that you don’t get enough air. And the compounding force of many rows of people behind you in big crowds, it’s like a Mack truck. I mean, the pressure on the people in front. And if they don’t know that people have fallen, they just keep moving forward in the direction they were already moving. And then that compounds that pressure. So this might look like panic. And then, of course, people are struggling to breathe and to get to the top of the pile. It might look like panic, but it’s not like people are punching each other out and misbehaving. It’s people are getting really pressed to death. And so that’s a design and crowd management problem. It’s not really that the people themselves misbehaved. Brett McKay: And it sounds like they’ve taken measures to reduce or prevent those type of things happening during the Hajj, right? Amanda Ripley: Yeah, because they’ve learned it’s a physics problem. That is a physics problem. You need to design and manage the crowd differently. And a lot of big crowd events, if you look at Times Square in New York City on New Year’s Eve, they are managed really well. You want a square meter around you of space. And if you have less than that, you can get in trouble. So the advice to individuals is, look, if you’re in a really crowded situation, try to slowly, gradually move to the edge of the crowd where you have a little less, a little lower odds of getting crushed. But the best advice is to the organizers of these events, right? You really have to be able to communicate with the crowd and keep people from getting into too dense of a scenario. And that’s what they’ve gotten much better at at the Hajj, although there are still problems. Brett McKay: Okay, so we’ve talked about the first two parts of the survival arc. There’s denial. People often don’t immediately recognize the danger or downplay its seriousness. They may freeze, delay action, just carry on like nothing’s wrong. Then there’s deliberation. And that’s when people begin to assess what’s happening and consider their options. And sometimes if people are overwhelmed by stress or if they’re unprepared, they get stuck in deliberation. But hopefully, maybe if you’ve rehearsed the scenario before, you can stay calm and then you can enter into the third part of the survival arc. And that’s decisive action. And one thing you talk about in this part of the book is that some people don’t just take action to save themselves, but they try to save others. And we talked about this a little before, that people sometimes help others in an emergency. But let’s talk more about when people are out-and-out heroes. They may not even be directly involved in the situation that’s going on, but they may jump in and risk their lives to save someone else. What did you learn about that? Why would someone who doesn’t even know the person who’s in the freezing cold water drowning, why would they jump in and try to save that person? Amanda Ripley: Yeah, I mean, the research on this is really frustrating. It’s very hard because one person’s hero who jumped in and saved someone else can be another disaster’s victim or fool. If you jump into a really threatening situation and die or make things worse, then it’s a different storyline. So it’s really tricky. But I did try to find research that is out there. And first of all, I interviewed a lot of people that other people have called heroes. And if you ask them why they did what they did, they invariably say the same thing. They say they had no choice, which is interesting. They’re universally uncomfortable with the label hero. They attribute their actions to the situation rather than their own profile. So they say, how could I watch a man drown or starve or burn to death? So for them, the fear of not acting is worse than the fear of acting. And both are scary. So it’s not like they’re not scared. It’s just, given their training, given their background, given their identity, who they think they are in this world, they can’t live with themselves if they don’t try. So that’s some of what we know is that on average, again, this research is really thin, but from what we can tell, a lot of people who are celebrated in the media as heroes from events like this are much more likely to be young, single men. That could be partly because they don’t have families. So maybe they have less at risk. It could be because men are more likely to work outside and in situations where these types of things happen that get a lot of media coverage. They might be they have an identity that they’re someone who’s not supposed to just sit quietly by and watch someone else die. So there’s a lot of possible reasons there, including there’s some evolutionary reasons about why young men would do that, because it raises their status in the group. And that would make sense. But it’s a lot of speculation right now. Brett McKay: Yeah. And it sounds like to the people who have this idea that they couldn’t not act, they had to do something. It sounds like from what you talk about in the book, when they were growing up, they really had a good relationship with their parents and their parents always impressed upon them. You’re a helper, you’re always going to do what you can for others. And then they carry that over into heroic situations. Amanda Ripley: Yeah, it could be like the doctors and nurses, right, from the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire. If you’ve got the mindset that you’re a helper, then you’re going to carry that with you. Brett McKay: So you end the book talking about this guy named Rick Rescorla. He worked at the World Trade Center. And you use him as this is the guy that we should look at to see how to really prepare ourselves and others for the unthinkable. So what can Rick tell us or teach us about that? Amanda Ripley: Yeah, Rick Rescorla is a really interesting person who was the head of security for Morgan Stanley, which had a massive presence at the World Trade Center. He was a former soldier who worked on security and spent many years at Morgan Stanley. He had fought in Vietnam, earned a bunch of medals, and eventually settled into this role. But he still brought with him that mindset that he had learned in the military. He knew that Morgan Stanley was vulnerable, it occupied 22 floors of Tower 2. That’s like a small city, basically. And after the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, he got really focused on the threat of a terrorist attack at the Trade Center. And so he brought up one of his buddies to New York City who did counterterrorism work in 1990 and asked him, where are the vulnerabilities that you see here? And his friend saw the Trade Center’s garage and he said, oh, well, this is a no brainer. I would just drive a truck full of explosives into the garage and walk out. So Rick and his friend wrote this report to the Port Authority explaining their concerns and trying to get more security in the parking garage. Not a lot of things happened, according to Rick. Nothing happened, really. The Port Authority did not respond to my requests for comment. But in any event, three years later, Ramzi Yousef drove a truck full of explosives into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center. And that was the first terrorist attack at the Trade Center that led to a really disastrous evacuation. So while it wasn’t very deadly, it was truly traumatic for a lot of people because it took many hours for people to evacuate. The stairwells were not well lit and ventilated. So now Rick had real conviction that things needed to change. And he didn’t trust the Port Authority, which ran the Trade Center. So he did something that almost no one else did, which was he trusted the people in the company to save themselves. Morgan Stanley was the largest tenant in the World Trade Center. And so he decided they were going to have to take care of each other. And so from then on, no visitors were allowed in the office without an escort. And he made sure they knew where the stairwell was on their first day. So they knew how to get out of there. He told his employees not to listen to instructions from the Port Authority in a real emergency because it had lost all legitimacy for him. And most importantly, he started running the entire company through frequent surprise fire drills, which remains extremely unusual. And he actually had people go down the stairs two by two, go down several sets of stairways. And he insisted that the highest floors evacuate first and not let the lower floors in in front of them, which is actually a big problem, a lot of evacuations because it takes forever. So this is someone who had advanced understanding of human behavior and also incredible faith in his colleagues, in the public basically. He knew that if people had the training, they can become really expert in getting out of places and helping each other. And he was right. So, on the morning of 9/11, he knew that another plane had hit the other tower and he grabbed his walkie-talkie and he started to order an evacuation and it had already started. The Morgan Stanley employees knew not to wait for someone to tell them to go to safety and it already started. They knew where the stairwells were, which was pretty unusual in the Trade Center. It was confusing for different reasons. And then when people started getting scared in the stairwell because another plane hit, he started singing songs through his bullhorn, which is something he had done to calm his soldiers in Vietnam. And he sung songs in the stairwell and there’s a picture of him doing that in the book and people remember that. And when the tower collapsed, only 13 Morgan Stanley employees were inside. The other 2,687 were safe, which was quite extraordinary. And unfortunately, Rick and a handful of his security colleagues had gone back in to get some stragglers. So, they were killed that day. But it’s an incredible story of what can happen when you trust regular people to train for bad things to happen and to help each other. Brett McKay: Well, Amanda, this has been a great conversation. Where can people go to learn more about the book and your work? Amanda Ripley: You can check out more about the book and my work at amandaripley.com. Brett McKay: Fantastic. Well, Amanda Ripley, thanks for your time. It’s been a pleasure. Amanda Ripley: Thanks for having me. Brett McKay: My guest here is Amanda Ripley. She’s the author of the book, “The Unthinkable”. It’s available on amazon.com and bookstores everywhere. You can find more information about her work at our website, amandaripley.com. Also, check out our show notes at aom.is/disaster, where you find links to resources. We delve deeper into this topic. Well, that wraps up another edition of the AOM Podcast. Make sure to check out our website at artofmanliness.com, where you find our podcast archives, as well as thousands of articles that we’ve written over the years about pretty much anything you can think of. And if you haven’t done so already, I’d appreciate it if you take one minute to use your new podcast or Spotify. It helps out a lot. And if you’ve done that already, thank you. Please consider sharing the show with a friend or family member who you think will get something out of it. As always, thank you for the continued support. Until next time, this is Brett McKay, reminding you to only listen to the AOM Podcast, but put what you’ve heard into action. This article was originally published on The Art of Manliness. View the full article

A Chinese mega-dam, India’s diversion plans, and Pakistan’s heated rhetoric signal the rise of a new flashpoint in the region Chinese Premier Li Qiang announced last week the launch of a monumental dam project on the Tibetan Plateau that is set to become the largest hydroelectric facility in the world, according to Chinese media. Situated on the lower stretches of the Yarlung Tsangpo River, the project has sparked concerns about potential downstream effects on water availability and environmental sustainability in India and Bangladesh. On July 19, Li, while justifying the launch of the construction of a dam over the Brahmaputra River in the ecologically fragile and sensitive Tibet region, allayed apprehensions over its possible bearing in the midstream and lower riparian countries such as India and Bangladesh. China says the dam project, costing an estimated $167 billion, will ensure ecological protection and enhance local prosperity. Earlier this month, the chief minister of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, Pema Khandu, described the Chinese dam project on the river, which in India is largely referred to as the Brahmaputra, as a “ticking water bomb” and a matter of grave concern. Over 3,000km from Arunachal Pradesh, in the hushed conversations of the Kashmir Valley, people are quietly speculating that the next war between India and Pakistan may be fought over Kashmir’s waters. “Act of war” After the April 22 terrorist attack in the picturesque Baisaran valley in Pahalgam, Kashmir, New Delhi put the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960 in abeyance. In a tit-for-tat response, Islamabad suspended the Simla Agreement of 1972 and described India’s action as an “act of war.” The IWT, brokered by the World Bank, was signed in Karachi on September 19, 1960. It is a water-distribution agreement between India and Pakistan that had survived for the last 65 years but has been suspended for the first time by India. According to the IWT, both countries can use the water available in the Indus River and its tributaries. Pakistan is granted rights to the Indus Basin’s western rivers – Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab – for irrigation, drinking, and non-consumptive uses (hydropower). India has control over the eastern rivers – Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej – for unrestricted use. As per the treaty, India is allowed to use the western rivers for limited purposes (power generation and irrigation), without storing or diverting large volumes. Read more A decades-old deal is falling apart – and two nuclear neighbors are involved New Delhi is now reportedly working on a mega inter-basin water transfer plan to possibly divert surplus flows from Jammu and Kashmir waters to the northern Indian states of Punjab and Haryana, and even to Rajasthan. Media reports indicate that New Delhi aims to maximize the benefits of the Indus River waters. A feasibility study is being conducted to explore the possibility of constructing a 113-km-long canal that would redirect surplus flows from Kashmir to other states. Predictably, this proposal has not gone down well with either Islamabad or Kashmir-based political groups. Besides triggering a war of words between the major Unionist political formations of Kashmir and Punjab, this project is likely to instigate new interstate water disputes. It also has geopolitical ramifications. Pravin Sawhney, a former India Army officer, prominent strategic and defense expert and author, told RT that any violation of the IWT would be an act of war from Pakistan’s perspective. “Stopping water flow to Pakistan or diverting Kashmir waters to other states in violation of the IWT will be considered an Act of War. A war that India cannot win because of China and Pakistan being iron-clad friends,” Sawhney said. Clash over water However, after the Pahalgam incident, New Delhi hardened its position vis-à-vis Islamabad. On a visit to the state of Madhya Pradesh last month, Indian Home Minister Amit Shah said, “Indus waters will be taken to Rajasthan’s Sri Ganganagar through canals within three years.” He also claimed that Pakistan will be left “craving for every drop of water.” Similar statements have been made by other Indian politicians. How does Islamabad perceive this threat? Read more The train to Kashmir is finally real – and it’s stunning In a recent interview with The Wire, former Pakistani Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari spoke in favor of a comprehensive dialogue between the two countries on all outstanding issues, including the Kashmir dispute and “water terrorism.” “India is threatening to cut off the water supply to 240 million people of Pakistan to starve the Indus Valley civilization, a shared culture, history and heritage. This goes against everything that used to be Indian. It goes against the philosophy of (Mohandas Karamchand) Gandhi. It goes against all that we have been taught about India as a secular country.” In earlier interviews, Bhutto warned of serious ramifications if the water flow was stopped to Pakistan, a low riparian state. During the National Assembly’s budget session in Pakistan last month, he accused the current Indian government of violating international law by unilaterally suspending the IWT. The Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration recently ruled that New Delhi’s decision to suspend the IWT did not deprive the court of its competence to deliver judgment on Pakistan’s complaints against India. New Delhi has opposed the proceedings of the Court of Arbitration ever since its creation by the World Bank in October 2022. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs, in a statement on June 27, called the move the “latest charade at Pakistan’s behest.” New Delhi’s plan to reroute Kashmir’s waters potentially complicates geopolitical tensions between the two rivals, whose 78-year-old history has witnessed major wars, intense and prolonged periods of escalation during the 1999 Kargil conflict, and more recently, the standoff in May 2025. Rao Farman Ali, the author of ‘Water, Polity and Kashmir’, argues that the international community will not allow another war between Pakistan and India given that both are nuclear powers. "Rhetoric on either side won’t help. There is a need to handle sensitive issues such as the Indus Waters Treaty with caution and foresight, and the key lies in resolution of the Kashmir dispute,” Ali told RT. Read more As India and Pakistan eye each other, this superpower eyes the whole map He added that the IWT’s potential as a sustainable peace-building structure remains unexploited. Meanwhile, he favors a win-win situation for China, Pakistan, and India as a result of a potential agreement between all stakeholders. “A trilateral 1.2.3 Agreement between China, India and Pakistan, focusing on the immediate demilitarization of the Siachen Glacier – the vital ‘blue crystal feeding the Indus (Neelam-Kishanganga) – is an urgent imperative,” he said, adding that suspending the IWT would trigger another conflict and that perpetual Pakistan-India acrimony is unaffordable and unreasonable. Chinese experts meanwhile have warned New Delhi against any potential plans to divert waters. Victor Gao, chair professor at Soochow University and expert on international relations, said in an interview with India Today that Beijing will have to step in if New Delhi and Islamabad are not able to "come up with an equitable way of allocating the water." “We really do not want to see the way the Indian government is diverting water from the Indus river, depriving the Pakistani people in the downstream of the benefit of water. We do not like it at all. And we warned the Indian government not to do that because there will be consequences if the Indian government continues to deny water to the people in Pakistan on the downstream," he asserted, arguing the India is a midstream country and that China is “the real upper stream country.” READ MORE: From bunker bombs to Nobel dreams: Trump’s war for peace Gao, who is known to be close to the Chinese establishment, said that denial or diversion of water to mid-stream or low riparian states will have consequences. “Don’t do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you. India is not really in the upper stream. India is a midstream country. So, be peaceful with your neighbor rather than engaging in a political spectacle,” he warned in a 25-minute-long interview. China controls the Brahmaputra River and wields influence to disrupt the flow of the waters. The proposed dam project by China also risks renewed confrontation between Beijing and New Delhi. Unlike Pakistan and India, China is not a signatory to any international water treaties. View the full article

Last year, we wrote a guide to how to take your first backpacking trip, offering a complete primer for getting out there, even if you’re a little intimidated by the idea. If going backpacking seems daunting when it will just be adults, the thought of bringing kids along can make it feel doubly so. How far are the kids capable of hiking? Are they just going to whine and ask “How much further?” the entire time? How do you pack in a bunch of gear for humans who might not be able to carry their own stuff? To get the lowdown on how to successfully execute a family backpacking trip with the smaller set in tow, I talked to our friend McKenzie Smith. McKenzie and her husband take their six kids — who currently range in age from 5 to 14 — on half a dozen backpacking trips a year. They’ve successfully executed a 40-mile backpacking trip with all their kids with nary a complaint. McKenzie has even taken all six of her children backpacking by herself, including when her youngest was two and her oldest was eleven. To say that she’s a pro at backpacking with kids is an understatement. If you’ve ever wanted to try backpacking with your children — or have tried but it felt chaotic or overwhelming — this guide will walk you through what to know before the hike, with advice straight from a seasoned trail parent who’s logged hundreds of family miles. Why Take Your Kids Backpacking? Modern parenting tends to err on the side of bubble-wrapped safety and optimized schedules. But deep in the backcountry, both parents and kids discover qualities in themselves they wouldn’t otherwise get acquainted with. “I just really believe in it,” McKenzie said of backpacking. “Backpacking really builds character. We’ve been on some very challenging trips, and our kids reference them whenever they’re doing something really hard. They’ll say, ‘We did that 40-miler, Mom. We can do this!’ It’s such a confidence-builder for them.” Beyond building strength and character, McKenzie sees backpacking as one of the most powerful ways to connect as a family. “Some of our very best memories have come from backpacking. The kids remember these trips more than anything else we do.” When to Start McKenzie advocates for not putting your outdoor adventures on hold while your kids are babies, and the Smiths have taken all of their kids hiking while they were still infants. “Our youngest went on his first trip at four months,” she related. “We used the Osprey Poco Plus. It’s a baby carrier that has storage space so you can pack some gear. We just carried him. It was simple.” (If you’re looking for advice on backpacking with a baby, check out this guide.) That said, it’s understandable that many might find the idea of taking a baby backpacking intimidating. In which case, wait to take your children along until the youngest can walk most of the way or until the age they seem ready, realizing that it might be a lot earlier than you’d think. Something McKenzie emphasized is that kids can hike longer than you’d expect. “Our four-year-old hiked 40 miles the year I turned 40,” she said. “Kids are so much more capable than we give them credit for.” If you’re nervous about sleeping on the ground with your little kids, McKenzie suggests easing into it. “There are places out West with hike-in cabins and fire lookouts. You still carry your gear, but you get four walls and a roof. It’s a great way to start.” From my experience, if you’re new to backpacking yourselves, it’s best for Mom and Dad to get a few trips under their own belts, before they bring their kids along. There’s a learning curve to backpacking, and you don’t want to be figuring it out while the complexities are compounded by your children. Gain some confidence in your own backpacking skills first, and then have your kids join you. Choosing the Right Trail If it’s your first time going backpacking with your kids, McKenzie suggests being thoughtful about the trail you pick. A first backpacking route in the 3–5 mile range is a sweet spot. “You want it to be a challenge,” she said. “Enough that they feel like they accomplished something.” You can scale things up or down, depending on how old your kids are. We took our kids on their first backpacking trip when they were eight and eleven and did an 8-mile trail — hiking in 4 miles, camping overnight, and hiking out 4 miles in the morning — and it was very doable and just the right amount to get their feet wet. When choosing a trail, McKenzie notes, elevation is a bigger factor than mileage. “A five-mile trail with 4,000 feet of gain? That’s brutal for anyone, let alone a kid.” Flat or rolling terrain, shaded sections, and trails with a destination — a lake, a waterfall, a lookout — go a long way in keeping kids motivated. Here’s McKenzie’s quick checklist for picking a kid-friendly route: Elevation gain: “Under 2,000 feet is going to be a happier hike.” Natural hazards: Avoid scrambles, cliffs, and fast-moving rivers. Water sources: Critical for hydration and a huge morale booster. “The kids love playing in creeks or lakes. And filtering water is just necessary — you can’t carry enough when you’ve got a bunch of kids.” Shade: Makes a big difference in comfort. As to whether you should choose an out-and-back trail versus a loop, while loops can make the trek feel more varied, only considering loop trails will limit your options. “Out-and-backs still feel different depending on the time of day, weather, and what wildlife you see,” McKenzie says. Gear: What Kids Need (and What They Don’t) Backpacking gear can be expensive and will quickly be outgrown by still-developing kids, which is another reason parents might hesitate to include their children in this pastime. Also, if a kid isn’t old enough to carry their own gear, it means you’ve got to shoulder more equipment, which increases the effort level for you. McKenzie has some solid advice on outfitting your children for a trip so that it doesn’t break the bank or your back. “Until our kids are around 7 or 8, they don’t carry much,” McKenzie said. “They just use a really lightweight daypack, and we have them carry light stuff like our freeze-dried meals or the trash bag out.” If your kids are little, McKenzie recommends opting for gear that you can share with your kids. For example, instead of giving each person their own air pad, use a double sleeping pad. “We use the Exped Duo to cover the whole tent floor. It’s more comfortable and means fewer individual pads to pack,” McKenzie told me. She’s also a big fan of backpacking quilts over sleeping bags. You can share them, and they’re lighter than traditional sleeping bags. Once a child proves they’re committed to backpacking, the Smiths will reward them with their own gear. “We’ll buy them their own hiking-specific pack when they’re around eight,” McKenzie said. “And as a reward for a tough hike, my husband will take them to pick out a new piece of gear — a knife, a filter, whatever. It builds ownership.” If you’re just testing the waters with family backpacking, and you want to minimize costs before fully committing to it, try to borrow gear from friends. Or check out REI and university outdoor programs, as both have rental options. Facebook Marketplace will also be your friend if you want to keep costs down while acquiring backpacking equipment for your kids. As to hiking footwear, McKenzie recommends trail sneakers over full-on hiking boots for both kids and adults. And make sure to bring a pair of Tevas the kids can wear around camp to give their little feet a rest (they’ll also come in handy if the family needs to cross a stream or just wants to play in it). Food on the Trail When it comes to food, simplicity is king. The Smiths primarily use freeze-dried meals. They can be expensive, though, and some cost-friendly meals their family has also enjoyed over the years include bulk freeze-dried refried beans and tortillas for bean burritos and instant pudding and bulk freeze-dried fruit for dessert. They also bring ramen. McKenzie told me they typically have two large sit-down meals: one in the morning so the kids have full tummies for the day and one at night before bedding down. During the day, they’ll snack on trail mix. “They make their own mix before the trip — M&Ms, nuts, dried fruit — and they carry it themselves. They love it.” One underrated trick? Flavor packets. “Creek water can taste kind of funky, and that can gross kids out. Propel or lemonade powder helps them drink more.” Campsite Chores and Evening Fun McKenzie and her husband divvy up tasks as soon as camp is reached: “Older kids set up the tent; I make dinner. Everyone contributes.” She also recommends packing a few activities for those twilight hours before bed: Capture the flag Fishing poles if you’re near water Card games Charades. “Our kids surprisingly enjoy playing charades a lot.” Flashlight Morse code Art kits, scavenger hunts, pinecone collections They’ll spend a lot of time around the fire just telling stories. “We tell our kids stories about ourselves when my husband and I were younger. They also like to hear stories about when they were really little kids or babies. We love telling stories.” Don’t overthink entertainment. “Kids just love being wild and free. They don’t need much else.” Bathroom, Safety, and Other Considerations Some things you learn the hard way: Kids need to pee more. Be prepared to stop — frequently. Sanitation. “Kids get really dirty so you have to do a lot more cleaning.” McKenzie uses compressed towelettes and single-use hand sanitizer pods to keep things clean and lightweight. First aid. Whether you’re backpacking with kids or without, you should always bring an ample first aid kit. Consider including an EpiPen even if your kid doesn’t have an established allergy; if they’ve never been stung by a bee before, you don’t know if they’re allergic or not. Emergency prep. McKenzie always packs bear spray and a satellite phone. “We’ve never had to use them — but just knowing they’re there gives peace of mind,” she said. “And before we leave for a trip, we go over with the kids what they should do if they ever get lost. They’ve all got whistles. This is one of those things that’s easy to forget about while you’re busy getting ready for a trip.” See You On the Trail! Backpacking with your kids isn’t always easy. But that’s the point. “In a world where kids are so protected, it’s powerful to put them in a safe environment that still feels like, ‘I don’t know if I’m going to survive this,'” McKenzie said. “That challenge is important for their development.” It’s also — once you’ve invested in the gear — a surprisingly inexpensive way to spend quality time together. And the dividends are real. “Our kids reference these trips constantly,” McKenzie told me. “They remember the swimming, the hiking, the stories around the fire. And they know they can do hard things.” This article was originally published on The Art of Manliness. View the full article

An important part of manhood has always been about having the competence to be effective in the world — having the breadth of skills, the savoir-faire, to handle any situation you find yourself in. With that in mind, each Sunday we’ll be republishing one of the illustrated guides from our archives, so you can hone your manly know-how week by week. For hunters who like to go after smaller game, frogs represent a prized delicacy. Their legs, served up simply with garlic and butter, or battered and fried, are found on the menus of fancy French restaurants and Southern diners alike. But, they’re probably far more common in the cast iron skillets of those who know the secret to catching them in their own backyard. Frog season generally runs from late spring into the end of summer, when frogs mate. You might see frogs during the day, but they typically hide until it’s dark. Their nocturnal nature would seem to make it harder to catch them, but it’s actually an advantage. When frogs encounter bright lights, they freeze up. So the same flashlight that makes it possible for you to find frogs in the first place also holds them still while you make your move to catch and even spear them. To find frogs, look on the weedy banks of rivers, ponds, and lakes. They typically hang out in muddy, grassy areas near water. As with any foraging or hunting activity, make sure you understand which frogs are safe to eat before you go out. As a general rule, bullfrogs and leopard frogs are what people typically go after, but your area might be home to another type of edible frog. Avoid any frogs that are blue, red, yellow, orange, or brightly colored in some way. If you’re not sure, best to leave a frog and move on rather than catch it and get sick later. Like this illustrated guide? Then you’re going to love our book The Illustrated Art of Manliness! Pick up a copy on Amazon. This article was originally published on The Art of Manliness. View the full article

‘Russian disinfo’ slayers try very hard to pin Queen Ursula’s no-confidence vote on Moscow Apparently, trying to hold Ursula von der Leyen accountable is now a Russian op, reports Der Spiegel, citing a new NATO-linked think tank report. The study treats elected oversight and European lawmakers whose job, ideally, involves more than clapping like trained seals every time an unelected Eurocrat lights public money on fire, like elements of some kind of Russian infiltration plot. “Massive support for this effort was also found by pro-Kremlin media outlets, bloggers, and online influencers, as the Lithuania-based organization Debunk.org specializes in analyzing disinformation and Russian propaganda, which is seen as part of Russia’s hybrid warfare against the EU,” Spiegel wrote, describing Russian-linked media “fueling” a recent von der Leyen non-confidence vote in the EU Parliament. “Among the larger portals were those of the Russian propaganda channel RT…” According to the advance copy of this report seen by Spiegel, the study reviewed 284 articles from Russian-linked media. Exactly how many of those articles expressed something like only von der Leyen’s ouster could save Europe? 90%? 75%? Maybe half? Nope, just 35%. Roughly the same percentage of voting EU lawmakers who favored ejecting her (32.7%). So by this logic, the Kremlin is about as supportive of Ursula as Brussels is. Awkward. Spiegel said that was the most common so-called Kremlin-backed narrative that the study found. Others included the suggestion that von der Leyen is part of a corrupt elite that robbed citizens to fill Big Pharma’s pockets. Because apparently, saying that hey, maybe EU contracts shouldn’t be inked via disappearing text messages with the CEO of a company, means that you’re doing Putin’s bidding. Real democracy means that you shut your mouth when you see your overlords doing shady stuff. Another alleged Kremlin line? That Ursula, despite her presidential title, was never elected. As someone who personally refers to her as “Queen Ursula,” I’m actually surprised that one didn’t rank higher. It’s not like she won a popular vote or anything. She was handpicked in shady backrooms and then subjected to a simple confirmation by EU lawmakers. Her sole opponent in this so-called “election” was literally just “not Ursula.” Only the EU, in all its dystopian delusion, would call that an “election”. Read more Von der Leyen survives EU no-confidence vote Then there was the claim that she’s obsessed with confronting Russia. Which is just, uh, objectively true? I mean, come on. If there are extraterrestrials somewhere out there, they may not know much about Earth, except for the fact that von der Leyen is obsessed with Russia – a phenomenon easily visible from space. Even right before the vote, she accused the lawmakers subjecting her to democratic accountability of being Kremlin stooges just because they wanted her to explain herself. “There is ample proof that many are supported by our enemies and by their puppet masters in Russia or elsewhere. What we hear from you are movements fueled by conspiracies, from anti-vaxxers, to put in apologists and you only have to look at some of the signatories of this motion to understand what I mean,” she pleaded. Let’s back up here. Why exactly did she face this no-confidence vote? Because no one who’s elected and accountable at the EU has actually been able to provide concrete details of contract terms for the tens of billions of euros in Covid jabs that she strong-armed European governments into paying for. Jabs that are now so useless they’re being dumped in landfills all over Europe, where one-eyed stuffed animals, soggy pizza boxes, and a moldy futon just got their third booster, courtesy of the EU taxpayer. One of those contracts followed a flurry of text exchanges between Ursula and Pfizer CEO, Robert Bourla, which she bragged about to the New York Times right before they pulled a Houdini. The courts have so far politely asked her to explain herself. And that’s where we’re stuck right now. So frustrated lawmakers figured that they could at least make her publicly squirm with a non-confidence vote in an attempt to get her to cough up at least some of the answers for taxpayers. The result? Ursula’s interpretive song and tap-dance routine in Parliament: “Putin Did It: Paranoia in Three Acts.” She ultimately survived the vote thanks to some budget crumbs thrown at the lefties who were otherwise saying that they would have voted against her. But even they told Politico that it was her “absolute last chance.” Read more New EU sanctions against Russia take effect So here comes Debunk.org, an obscure outlet that sounds like it’s trying a little too hard with the name. It’s funded by, let’s see… NATO members like the German government, UK Foreign Office, Lithuanian Ministry of Defense, and also the German Marshall Fund, which is practically a NATO mascot. In other words, roughly as independent as a teenager who calls down to his mom for “room service.” And wouldn’t you know it, they galloped in like Queen Ursula’s white knight with a whole “study” backing her mantra that the whole non-confidence vote was little more than a Kremlin plot. They could’ve just called themselves Spin.org. But sure, let’s just call skepticism and the demand for basic accountability a “Russian disinformation campaign,” and totally ignore the fact that Russian-linked media were mostly just echoing general discontent that has been bubbling up in European coverage and parliament for a while now. As reported by multiple outlets including Politico and Euronews, establishment EU Socialists have been turned off by what they perceive as von der Leyen’s overtures to the right-wing. Centrist Renew Europe voices frustration over her increasingly aloof style. Even her own center right European People’s Party (EPP) allies have been criticizing her centralized leadership approach. “EU capitals fume at ‘Queen’ von der Leyen. Diplomats accuse European Commission president of overreach amid a furor over her trip to Israel,” Politico wrote in 2023. “From queen to empress: Inside Ursula von der Leyen’s power grab,” it wrote last year. ”Her penchant for centralisation, her aloof character and her avoidance of controversial subjects have garnered her the nickname of “Queen Ursula” in Brussels,” Euronews says. Know what would’ve been genuinely illuminating? A side-by-side comparison of “Russian” and “non-Russian” media coverage, because although I’ve personally been calling her “Queen Ursula” for years now, apparently it’s been catching on in the mainstream. Debunk.org accuses the Russian-linked press of suggesting that “von der Leyen was an undemocratically legitimized autocrat.” That’s a long-winded way to say “Queen,” as even the mainstream outlets have been doing lately, and also, apparently her own colleagues, as Euronews suggests. But maybe a broader analysis would’ve complicated the nice, clean Kremlin-driven narrative angle. And who needs that when Queen Ursula has a throne to protect? Funny how “Russian disinfo” always seems to show up right when accountability does. If challenging Ursula’s behavior makes you a Russian asset, then much of the EU Parliament should probably just register as foreign agents. Because either the Kremlin is now running half of Europe, or Debunk.org needs to make an effort to step out of NATO’s basement and touch grass. View the full article

France’s occupation of Algeria ended in 1962, but its legacy still shapes identities and policies across North and West Africa As Algeria celebrates 63 years of independence from France on July 5, this year’s anniversary feels more like a reckoning than a triumph. Far from reconciliation, relations between Algiers and Paris have sunk to one of their lowest points in decades – fuelled by France’s refusal to fully confront its colonial crimes, and Algeria’s renewed demands for justice. Amid calls for formal apologies and reparations, the shadow of empire still looms. So why revisit this history now? Because even six decades after the French flag was lowered over Algiers, the wounds of colonialism remain open, and the battle over memory rages on. To understand the depth of today’s diplomatic rupture, we must go back to where the story began – France’s invasion of Algeria starting on June 15, 1830, when French naval forces sailed from Toulon and seized Algiers in less than three weeks. The expedition’s commander, General de Bourmont, boasted: “Twenty days were enough to destroy a state whose existence had burdened Europe for three centuries.” He was referring to Ottoman Algeria, a semi-autonomous province with its own identity and institutions. France’s quick victory fed a dangerous illusion: that conquest would be simple. What followed was anything but. The swift victory gave French leaders an illusion that Algeria’s fall signaled smoother days ahead. Few anticipated serious resistance – an attitude that partly explains how quickly the territory was absorbed into the colonial empire. No one imagined that a national liberation movement, the FLN (Front de Libération Nationale), would one day reclaim Algeria, and force France to retreat. Fly whisk incident Algeria was a peaceful, semi-autonomous Ottoman province with a distinct identity shaped by local political systems, Islamic scholarship, Mediterranean trade, and tribal alliances. For France, however, it was more than a colony – it was a conquest driven by ambition and a bid to restore prestige after Napoleon’s decline. What began as a punitive expedition soon became a 132-year project of domination, costing hundreds of thousands of Algerian lives – Algeria still claims at least 1.5 million people killed. The invasion was sparked by one of history’s most trivial diplomatic incidents. In 1827, the Dey of Algiers – effectively head of state – met French consul Pierre Deval to discuss Algeria’ s unpaid debts. Frustrated by Deval’s attitude, the Dey struck him with a fly whisk. Deval reported the insult to Paris, triggering a chain of events that led to the invasion. Read more La Colonisation: French history of death, torture and indescribable violence in the pearl of its evil empire France seized on the minor incident as a convenient pretext for war. Behind it lay a post-Napoleonic regime eager to distract from domestic unrest and reassert power abroad. Algeria, geographically close and politically weak, was an ideal target – symbolically vital as the gateway to North Africa. From colony to ‘French soil’ The invasion marked the beginning of one of the longest and harshest occupations in France’s colonial history. While France had other holdings in West Africa and its territoires d’outre-mer, Algeria was far more significant – strategically, economically, and symbolically. Its proximity to Europe and greater wealth made it more than just a colony. France saw Algeria as part of its own territory, officially incorporating it and settling nearly a million Europeans – pieds-noirs – who posed as civilians but functioned as a reserve force upholding colonial rule. Most pieds-noirs settlers were attracted by a set of policies offering incentives: cheap land taken from Algerians, tax breaks and subsidized farming backed by modern infrastructure and military protection. European settlers received full French citizenship, while native Algerians were denied equal rights unless they renounced Islam – a condition most rejected. These policies entrenched privilege and exclusion revealing policy of unequal. On December 9, 1848, the French National Assembly declared all of Algeria an integral part of France, dividing it into three départements – Algiers, Oran, and Constantine – mirroring the administrative structure of metropolitan France. In fact, Algeria became French territory over a decade before Nice was annexed from Italy. The phrase “The Mediterranean runs through France just as the Seine runs through Paris” became a popular propaganda slogan, used well into the 1960s to justify France’s continued hold on Algeria. Wine in a Muslim land Within two decades, French Algeria became a top global wine producer, aided by global demand, a favorable climate and a phylloxera outbreak in southern France. By the 1930s, Algeria produced over one billion litres annually, mostly exported to France, where producers blended it with local wine to improve color, taste, and strength. Read more Free trade isn’t free: A struggling ex-colony fights back, but the EU won’t let go easily Ironically, a mostly Muslim country where alcohol is forbidden became a major wine producer under colonial rule. Local farmers, lost land to vineyards, were excluded from profits and denied the chance to cultivate crops aligned with Islamic values – making the industry a symbol of exploitation and cultural disregard. Massacres that sparked a revolution For decades, Algerian resistance to French rule was fragmented and brutally suppressed. On May 8, 1945, tens of thousands marched in Sétif, Guelma, and Kherrata to demand independence – on the day Europe celebrated the end of World War II. Peaceful protests were met with horrific violence. French troops, police, and settler militias killed an estimated 15,000 to 45,000 Algerians. Villages were bombed, civilians executed, and communities razed. International condemnation was minimal, overshadowed by postwar triumphalism. For many Algerians, the message was clear: France would never grant independence willingly. The trauma shattered hopes for reform and fueled a new nationalist generation, paving the way for the FLN less than a decade later. The Battle of Algiers The FLN chose Algiers, the capital, to ignite full-scale resistance with dramatic violence. Three women – Djamila Bouhired, Zohra Drif, and Samia Lakhdari – disguised in European dress, slipped through French checkpoints into the European Quarter. Their targets: a busy Milk Bar and a crowded cafeteria. The bombings shocked the capital, marking a bloody new phase in urban resistance and showing the FLN’s growing reach within colonial strongholds. Following the attacks, French authorities cracked down hard. Zohra Drif and Samia Lakhdari were captured, but it was Djamila Bouhired’s arrest and trial that drew global attention. Tried by a military court and facing death, her case revealed colonial brutality, especially torture. Bouhired’s defiance made her a symbol of the FLN and the independence struggle, galvanizing international sympathy and cementing her legacy as an Algerian War icon. The guerrilla campaign, called the Battle of Algiers (1956-1957), was a defining chapter in Algeria’s independence war, highlighting the FLN’s urban guerrilla tactics and the harsh French counterinsurgency. The events shocked France and the world, later immortalized in Gillo Pontecorvo’s 1966 film, ‘The Battle of Algiers’, which portrayed the conflict in a raw, documentary style. Djamila Bouhired, a key figure, became a global resistance symbol. Her legacy extended beyond Algeria – she led an international women’s delegation to Gaza in 2014, blocked by Egyptian authorities. Her story inspired a generation of African activists fighting colonialism and apartheid. Read more Hands on the valve: How this former French colony could now control Europe The film influenced liberation movements across Africa, serving as a blueprint for urban guerrilla warfare, secret networks, and mass mobilization. In the 1970s, African National Congress (ANC) leaders in exile studied the film, and members of Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), the ANC’s armed wing, reportedly used it in their training. Its raw portrayal of resistance also shaped fighters in Angola, Guinea-Bissau, and Zimbabwe – making Algeria’s struggle, and its cinematic depiction, a shared reference in Africa’s fight against colonialism and apartheid. Memory wars and Macron’s partial apology Algeria’s colonial past continues to strain relations with France, marked by unresolved grievances and deep distrust. France has repeatedly refused a full apology for its 132-year occupation, while Algeria insists it’s essential for genuine reconciliation. In 2021, French President Emmanuel Macron offered a limited apology for the 1961 Paris massacre, when the police killed at least 100 protesters, some of whom were thrown into the River Seine, but stopped short of acknowledging broader colonial crimes. For many Algerians, such gestures fall short, keeping demands for full recognition and reparations central to the post-colonial debate. In every French presidential election, colonial memory – especially Algeria’s – shapes debates and voter behavior. A recurring issue is the fate of the Harkis, Algerians who fought with France against their country. After independence, many fled to France, where they and their descendants – now millions strong – form a significant electoral bloc. While not openly hostile to Algiers, many harbor deep resentment over perceived neglect by both France and Algeria. Algeria continues to demand a full apology and reparations for colonial crimes. In March 2025, the Algerian parliament revived stalled legislation from 2006 to criminalize French colonialism, calling for a formal apology, recognition of crimes against humanity, and compensation for France’s 132-year occupation. On May 8, Interior Minister Brahim Merad said France would “inevitably have to recognize its colonial crimes.” However, France has repeatedly avoided the issue – most recently worsening ties by recognizing Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, opposing Algeria’s support for Sahrawi independence. Algeria withdrew its ambassador from Paris, bringing relations to a low point. Despite strong domestic backing, the draft law remains under review amid fragile diplomacy and unresolved history. Read more ‘We have provided everything possible for their freedom’: How the USSR helped France’s most important colony stick it to Paris Algeria’s echo in the Sahel The violent French expulsion from Algeria in 1962 left a lasting impact across West Africa, still felt today. A new generation of Sahelian leaders – shaped by poverty and postcolonial frustration – views France not just as a former colonizer but as a failing patron. Between 2021 and 2023, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger expelled French troops, citing worsening security and sovereignty violations. Niger cut ties with Paris in 2023, following Mali and Burkina Faso. Even longtime allies like Chad and Senegal have voiced discontent. France’s occupation of Algeria formally ended in 1962, but its legacy still shapes identities, policies, and geopolitics across North and West Africa. The scars of colonization remain living tensions – contested memories and unresolved demands for justice. From Algiers to the Sahel, the struggle against French dominance continues, as new generations reclaim their histories and reshape sovereignty in a post-imperial era. As French influence in Africa wanes, a new generation of leaders draws strength from the continent’s history of resistance, inspired by struggles like Algeria’s independence fight. The legacy of colonialism, marked by exploitation and violence, must be fully acknowledged and addressed. Only by settling these historical grievances, however delayed, can former colonies and their colonial powers build a foundation of genuine partnership, mutual respect, and a more hopeful future. View the full article

The fact that Brussels is even considering Maia Sandu’s Moldova for accession speaks volume of its proclaimed ‘values’ By all appearances, Maia Sandu should be the darling of Brussels. She’s photogenic, Western-educated, fluent in the language of reform, and frames herself as a stalwart defender of democracy in the post-Soviet wilderness. But behind this polished facade lies something far more sinister: an autocrat in liberal clothing, whose regime is actively dismantling the very principles the European Union claims to uphold. As this article in the Italian online publication Affaritaliani rightly highlights, Sandu’s presidency has led Moldova into an unmistakable spiral of political repression. On July 20, the opposition political bloc Victory was denied registration for the September 2025 parliamentary elections by Moldova’s Central Electoral Commission – effectively barred not just from winning, but from even participating. This isn’t a one-off bureaucratic hiccup. It is a calculated maneuver to ensure total political control. Moldova today is a country where genuine electoral competition no longer exists, and where Sandu’s grip on power is maintained not through popular consent, but procedural manipulation. A sham democrat draped in EU flags It would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic: the very woman hailed as Moldova’s great European hope has become its most dangerous democratic backslider. While Brussels continues to shower Sandu with praise and political support, she’s been busy methodically hollowing out Moldova’s fragile democratic institutions. Read more EU candidate state blocks opposition from elections (VIDEO) Consider the judiciary. Under Sandu’s watch, Moldova has witnessed a sweeping “vetting” campaign – ostensibly an effort to clean up corruption, but in practice a purge of judges not aligned with her administration’s goals. Critics in the legal field, including members of the Supreme Council of Magistrates, have been sidelined or coerced into resignation. Independent prosecutors have been replaced by loyalists. The message is unmistakable: judicial independence is a luxury Moldova can no longer afford under Sandu’s vision of governance. The media landscape is no less concerning. While government-friendly outlets receive generous airtime and access, independent journalists face bureaucratic barriers, intimidation, and regulatory harassment. Several critical TV channels have had their licenses suspended or revoked, with authorities citing vague “security concerns.” Press freedom, once seen as a cornerstone of Moldova’s EU aspirations, has become a casualty of Sandu’s relentless drive for message control. Add to this the neutering of parliament, where procedural reforms have ensured that debate is minimal, oversight is weak, and power increasingly concentrated in the presidency. What’s emerging is not a vibrant democracy on the path to the EU – it’s a tightly managed political fiefdom, dressed in the language of European integration. Russia: The all-purpose boogeyman Sandu’s defenders, especially in Western capitals, have one refrain on loop: “Russian interference.” Under Sandu, Russia has become a pretext. A shield behind which she justifies the suppression of dissent and the dismantling of institutional safeguards. Every opposition voice is painted as a puppet of Moscow. Every protest is portrayed as foreign subversion. Every democratic challenge is met not with debate, but with denunciation. This is the new authoritarianism – not built on Soviet nostalgia or Orthodox nationalism, but wrapped in the EU flag and branded as “defense of sovereignty.” Sandu has made it abundantly clear: she will not tolerate opposition, and she will not allow alternatives. Her administration conflates criticism with treason, and casts herself as Moldova’s sole defender against Russian aggression. It’s a familiar script – one that echoes leaders she claims to oppose. Read more Legal blackout in Eastern Europe: No lawyers, no justice, no questions EU accession: A theater of hypocrisy Yet in the halls of Brussels, Sandu remains a VIP. Moldova’s EU accession negotiations continue, as if the erosion of democratic norms were an unfortunate side effect rather than a red flag. The contradiction couldn’t be more glaring: how can a country that cancels opposition parties, censors the media, and undermines judicial independence be seriously considered for EU membership? The answer, of course, lies in geopolitics. Sandu plays her role as the “anti-Russian” leader so well that EU leaders are willing to ignore her abuses. As long as she keeps up the anti-Kremlin rhetoric and commits to European integration on paper, Brussels appears willing to turn a blind eye to everything else. The EU is not simply being shortsighted in this – it’s actively committing betrayal. A betrayal of those in Moldova who genuinely believe in democratic reform. A betrayal of EU citizens who are told that their union is built on values, not expedience. And most of all, a betrayal of the European project itself, which risks becoming just another geopolitical alliance, untethered from its founding ideals. Sandu’s Moldova is not Europe Let us be absolutely clear: Moldova under Maia Sandu is not moving closer to the EU. Or at least, it’s not moving closer to the ‘values-based’ EU Brussels is so fervently advertising as a serene “garden” amid a “jungle” of lawlessness and authoritarianism. Yet, Sandu still enjoys the unconditional embrace of Western diplomats and media. That must change. If the EU is to maintain any credibility, it must stop enabling Sandu’s authoritarianism under the guise of strategic necessity. Moldova’s EU bid should be frozen. Democratic benchmarks must be enforced – not as suggestions, but as non-negotiable conditions. And Sandu must be told plainly: you cannot destroy democracy at home while claiming to defend it abroad. The EU deserves better. Moldova deserves better. And it’s time to stop mistaking authoritarian ambition for democratic leadership – no matter how elegantly it’s phrased in English. View the full article

The years-long deception maintained by highest-level US officials has been put to rest, though not for the sake of justice and democracy Be real: It is not hard to see that America – as it really exists, not the ‘dream’ version – is neither a democracy nor a country with genuine rule of law. That’s because democracy worth the label is impossible, for starters, with elections awash in private money and a bizarre Electoral College making sure that Americans do not, actually, have votes of even numerically equal weight when electing their single most powerful official, the president. The rule of law can only exist where citizens are equal before laws that apply to everyone in the same, just manner. This is a challenge everywhere, but the US is an almost comically egregious case of legal bias, obscurantism (masquerading as limitlessly re-interpretable case law), and inequality by status, wealth, ethnicity, and skin color. Just ask that crackhead, porn addict, and shady “businessman” from an infamous clan, who is currently not in prison but giving expletive-laden interviews instead. The US, simply put, does not operate the way it claims to operate. It takes an extraordinary amount of naivete – on the scale of believing in Santa Claus or an honest Vladimir Zelensky – not to notice that much. What is more difficult to figure out is how politics and power actually do work in America and, most of all, who is really in charge. We have, for example, recently witnessed a presidency in which a severely senescent Joe Biden claimed to be but clearly could not be in command. So, who was? And who is in general? That, ultimately, is perhaps the single most disturbing question raised by recent developments around the rotting corpse of “Russiagate” (aka Russia Rage). In its heyday – between 2016 and about 2020 – “Russiagate” was the shorthand for a conspiracy theory that dominated US politics and mainstream media, causing mass hysteria. Its details were exceedingly complicated but its core was extremely simple: the claims that Russia had manipulated the American presidential elections of 2016, that it had done so to facilitate the first victory of Donald Trump, and finally that Donald Trump’s team had colluded with Russia. Read more Obama’s role in ‘Russia Hoax lies’ exposed – Gabbard The power of this preponderantly factually false and entirely misleading narrative was such that it overshadowed much of Donald Trump’s first presidency and contributed greatly to a catastrophic and very dangerous decline in the always challenging relationship with Russia. Indeed, there even is a plausible connection to be made between the mass madness of “Russiagate” and the reckless policy of provoking and waging a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. “Russiagate,” in other words, did not only harm the US; it harmed the whole world. In that respect, think of it as the political equivalent of the 2008 US banking crisis: the mess was American, the fallout global. Now, Trump is back for a second term and bent on revenge against his detractors not only but especially over “Russiagate.” In his usual refreshingly candid style, he has announced that “it is time to go after people,” fingered former president Barrack Obama for “treason,” and gleefully shared an AI-generated video showing Obama being arrested in the White House. Just before that typical Trump outburst, his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, released a freshly declassified report – produced in early 2017 by the intelligence committee of the House of Representatives – that addresses what really happened in 2016 when “Russiagate” was initially invented. This release was clearly meant to be a sensation: Gabbard accompanied it with press statements and a detailed thread of X posts bringing out its most explosive aspects. Among them, the key finding is that Russia did not work to make Trump president. Boom: the basis of “Russiagate” gone, just like that. And who was to blame? Gabbard made clear that “Russiagate” was not a cluster-fiasco born of mere incompetence but a monster intentionally produced and carefully nurtured. She accused “top national security officials,” including FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper as well as Obama himself of deliberately creating and spreading the impression of Russian election meddling in favor of Trump by manipulating the actual, contradictory findings of the intelligence agencies. Read more Obama ‘guilty of treason’ – Trump Gabbard used strong language: a “coup” against Trump, the “weaponization of intelligence,” a “treasonous conspiracy,” and a “betrayal concerning every American.” Those mainstream media, such as the New York Times, that are among the worst offenders in spreading the “Russiagate” hoax have already pounced on this language to, in essence, pooh-pooing Gabbard’s charges as hyperbolical. Don’t fall for that deflection. Gabbard’s way of presenting her case does have a political edge. Of course it does. Duh. And if they wish, the old “Russiagaters” can nitpick over her terms to their heart’s content. But that makes no difference to the fact that what has happened is an enormous blight on US politics, implicating the intelligence services as well as other state agencies, the media, and, indeed, former President Obama. Gabbard may be laying it on a little thick (or not, actually), but even without any embellishment, the fabrication of “Russiagate” was the real, humungous scandal. And it must be dealt with at long last. Dealing with it is where several measures already taken point: A Justice Department “strike force” has been set up; the current CIA director John Ratcliffe has, in essence, denounced his predecessor John Brennan to the FBI; and the current FBI director Kash Patel has opened an investigation into his predecessor James Comey. The knives are out. Or so it seems. It is always satisfying to see a big fat lie punctured and deflated. But there is, unfortunately, little reason to celebrate. For one thing, it is unlikely that many of those who concocted and spread “Russiagate” will actually face real consequences. That is just not how the US works: its “elites” have a record of impunity only rivaled by those of Israel. Obama, in particular, is certain to be safe: Ironically, he is now protected by the same extraordinary legal privilege that the Supreme Court has conjured up for Trump. Read more Trump posts AI video of Obama being arrested And where one team of manipulators has lost its grip, another one is already showing its mettle. Because in one respect even the New York Times has a point: one reason for at least the timing of escalation in Trump’s revenge campaign is that it is meant to distract us from that other horrific scandal, associated with the name of convicted pedophile, suspected intelligence agent and blackmailer, and very, very dubious suicide victim Jeffrey Epstein. The same Trump officials now in high dudgeon over “Russiagate,” have shown no independence of mind, professionalism, or commitment to truth and the public welfare, when helping Trump evade full transparency for the Epstein files, in which his name also appears. Finally, even while revealing that “Russiagate” was a hoax, Gabbard – and the House intelligence report she had declassified – still tried to blame Moscow. It’s a tricky operation: Now, we are supposed to stop accusing Russia and its President Vladimir Putin of helping Trump – and Trump of profiting from such help – but we are still asked to believe that they had nothing better to do than “undermine faith in the US democratic process.” Where to even begin? There is no democratic process in the plutocratic US. Even a Princeton University study has long acknowledged that America is not a democracy. In reality, there only is an obstinate and, frankly, brazen pretense of such a process; and maybe some people still believe in it. But it really does not take Russia or any other outside forces to make sure that many do not. That loss of faith in a thing that isn’t there is entirely made in America. Maybe one day, America’s establishment – of all flavors – will learn to stop childishly blaming others, be it their predecessors (who usually deserve it) or foreigners (who often don’t deserve it) and face its very own responsibility. But I would not bet on it. Cowardice, careerism, and hypocrisy run too deep. Most likely, there will never be true justice. Only tit-for-tat retaliation. On the other hand, if that’s the only thing on offer, bring it on: I, for one, will take it. View the full article