STRIKE THE TRUTH

The United States’ 2025 National Security Strategy was published on December 4th. It sets out the priorities of the U.S. government for the upcoming administration, its main goals, strategic direction, and expectations for global partners, as well as how it intends to position itself on the world stage. It is a critical document that U.S. allies look to in order to understand how to navigate their relationships with an increasingly unpredictable Trump administration. Unfortunately, despite its significance, this 30 page document falls short. It presents a deeply insular “America First” approach, combined with the assertion that the United States can intervene anywhere it deems necessary in the name of “protecting the interests of the American people.” In practical terms, this means asserting authority over other nations’ governments, laws, and internal affairs whenever Washington labels something a threat. In this blog post, I will break down the strategy, focusing especially on what ...

For decades, American diplomacy has traditionally followed a structured and institutional approach shaped by the State Department, multilateral cooperation, and standardized policy frameworks. The current U.S. strategy in mediating the Ukraine–Russia peace process, however, looks extremely different. Rather than following classical diplomatic norms, Washington is now approaching the conflict as though it were a business negotiation. This is most evident in the strong involvement of Steve Witkoff, the US envoy with a background in real estate, investment, and deal-making. Their methods reflect the growing influence of American business culture on global conflict resolution, due to Trump's own background in this area. The result is an approach that treats the war not only as a geopolitical crisis but also as a complex transaction in which leverage, incentives, and practical outcomes matter more than ideological alignment. In this blog post, let's analyze how this approach will be...

Last week, we examined how the United States has fallen short in supporting Ukraine by promoting a 28-point peace plan that leaves Ukraine cornered while granting Russia much of what it wants. The aggressor—the state responsible for the invasion—appears to be gaining the advantage, while the victim is left constrained with limited options. Now, let’s consider another scenario: Europe turning its back on an America that has become an increasingly unpredictable ally. How would Europe measure up without U.S. military capabilities?       WHAT SUPPORT IS USA GIVING EUROPE? The United States provides Europe with a significant share of its overall military security through a large and diverse forward presence. Around 80,000–100,000 U.S. troops are stationed or rotating through Europe, including reinforced deployments on NATO’s eastern flank since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. This presence includes brigade combat teams, armored units, aviation detachments, air defense...

This week was dominated by news of a leaked 28-point peace plan, drafted by U.S. and Russian officials—without Ukraine or European input. The plan reads like a wish list from the Kremlin and puts Ukraine in an undignified and impossible position. The U.S. is pressuring Zelenskyy to accept it, or face consequences. Let’s take a closer look at this peace plan—and why it is utterly rubbish. The U.S. is showing less of a global leadership role and more of a greedy uncle, willing to side with criminals above all else. THE SO CALLED " PEACE PLAN"   The leaked 28-point plan is a U.S.–Russia proposal to end the war. It keeps Ukraine’s sovereignty but adds strict military, political, and territorial rules. Ukraine would get security guarantees, but only if it limits its army to 600,000 troops, promises never to join NATO, hosts no NATO forces, and stays non-nuclear. Russia would promise not to attack Ukraine or Europe, and both sides would solve security issues through a new dialogue...

There is a common sentiment expressed in some right-leaning political discussions: “It’s not our war,” or “They aren’t our people.” In some ways, it’s understandable why some individuals feel this way. They may question why their country should spend limited resources on issues and people outside their borders. If a conflict is happening elsewhere, and the people affected are not citizens, it can seem distant or unrelated. However, events in other parts of the world — whether in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, or elsewhere — often have wider consequences. Global conflicts can influence international stability, migration, trade, security, and the overall wellbeing of interconnected economies. We also have international agreements, humanitarian commitments, and widely shared principles of human rights, ethics, and moral responsibility. In this blog post, we will take a look at the perspective that assistance should be limited to citizens within one’s own country, whether in the form of ...

This week has brought a jolt to Ukraine as a major corruption scandal erupted, reaching into the inner circle of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. At the same time, the country is bracing for another brutal winter, with its energy grid continually targeted by Russian drones and ballistic missiles. As civilians struggle with freezing conditions and soldiers endure relentless fighting at the front, it’s worth asking: What is really happening in Ukraine? In this blog post, we’ll take a closer look at the current corruption challenges facing Ukraine and the measures President Zelenskyy is taking to confront them. The nation’s morale hangs in the balance — as does Ukraine’s future in the European Union and the willingness of international partners to continue providing aid. A HISTORY OF CORRUPTION SINCE THE FALL OF USSR Ever since Ukraine declared independence in 1991, corruption has been one of the country’s most persistent challenges. As the Soviet system collapsed, powerful insiders rushed ...