Paradigm Sifts, and Deduction Deconstruction: October 2025

Tuesday, October 28, 2025

The West's Complicity in the Destruction of Ukraine

Me:

Given the expansionist agendas of both Russia and NATO/the EU, and the red lines set by each, a military solution is the only possible outcome -a solution that would obligate Ukraine to continue to provide the boots on the ground -the cannon fodder- indefinitely. A military resolution could be a long time coming, and given the ambiguity of continued US and European support, it seems likely that Russia will hold out the longest. The implications for Ukraine and Ukrainians are enormous. It seems likely that in the long run they will be abandoned, much like the Kurds have repeatedly been used and abandoned.

Perplexity AI:

Your analysis aligns with what many critical observers and policy analysts have concluded regarding the current dynamics of the Ukraine war. Both Russia and NATO/EU have established red lines defining what is negotiable and what is not, creating a proxy standoff where a negotiated, diplomatic settlement is increasingly unlikely—at least under present conditions.wikipedia+2

Military Solution as Default

Both Russia and the Western alliance have signaled repeatedly—by word and deepening military commitment—that their ambitions regarding Ukraine’s alignment and territory are non-negotiable red lines. This cements the conflict as an existential, zero-sum struggle for both sides, making compromise extremely difficult to achieve or even propose politically.cidob+1
Ukraine’s indispensable role is to provide the “boots on the ground.” Without Ukrainian forces—or their willingness to continue fighting—the West does not appear willing to intervene directly, and Russia can outlast Ukraine militarily if Western support falters.theowp+1
There is mounting war fatigue and ambiguity about the reliability of future US support, particularly as geostrategic and domestic priorities shift in Washington and Brussels. Russia’s calculation—borne out in past proxy conflicts and explicitly discussed in recent open sources—is that it has the higher pain threshold and can “hold out” militarily and politically longer than the West can maintain united, robust support for Kyiv.theowp

Strategic Abandonment Risks

The historical parallel with the Kurds is apt: externally backed local forces are at risk of eventual abandonment if/when their utility to patrons wanes, strategic calculations shift, or maintaining support becomes too costly domestically for the sponsors.theowp
The growing acknowledgment in policy and analytic circles is that the current structure of support is highly contingent and could dry up, leaving Ukraine facing disproportionate costs—social, demographic, and territorial—without security guarantees or a viable path to rapid EU/NATO membership.theowp

Ukrainian Agency and the Human Cost

The practical effect is that Ukraine’s fate, agency, and negotiating options are heavily constrained by the competing, sometimes conflicting, ambitions of outside powers. The risk is a prolonged war—or “frozen conflict”—where Ukraine is pressured to fight “to the last soldier,” enduring immense destruction, in the hopes of eventual victory or favorable conditions that may never materialize.theowp
For Ukrainians, the implications—population loss, economic devastation, social trauma, and ultimately uncertain sovereignty—are immense. The risk of abandonment or insufficient support grows as war fatigue and ambiguity about Western resolve increase.theowp

In Summary

You are not out of step with prevailing analytic concerns: the structure and stated aims of all major actors, plus the logic of the conflict thus far, make a negotiated solution highly improbable. The burden on Ukraine is immense, and outside powers—while publicly supportive—may not provide the enduring sacrifice that a military resolution would require, especially if political winds shift. Ukraine faces a real risk of the “Kurd scenario”: being used as a strategic pawn and later abandoned as cost, fatigue, and shifting interests intervene.wikipedia+2

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

For a complete history of the development of the above analysis click here.

Locating the war in Ukraine in the geopolitical context of today requires a much deeper dive. It becomes evident that the West is in denial of the fact that it has lost significant geopolitical influence, and both the rhetoric of protecting a western rules-based world order and claims that Russia and China pose military threats to the West are bogus. The West isn't being targeted; it is simply losing relevance in an increasingly multi-polar world. Western leaders are either in denial of this or they are trying to hide it from their constituents to protect their political futures. Acknowledged or not, this new reality is going to be very disruptive to the 15% of the world's population that benefited from the uni-polar, now US-led, rules-based world order that has enriched Western countries for the past 200 years at the expense of the other 85% of the world's population.

Here are two videos that connect a lot of the dots needed to understand where we were geopolitically, how we got there, where we're headed and why:

Jeffrey Sachs & John Mearsheimer: Spheres of Security to Prevent World War III

URGENT !! The UNIPOLAR WORLD Is OVER — History Has Turned Against the West | Prof. John Mearsheimer

Both of these gentlemen -Sachs an economics professor and Mearsheimer a Professor of in realism and international relations theory-- provide very comprehensive analysis, and these two videos are but two samples of their vast work and profound insights. (They don't always agree on everything, but their analysis and interpretations of things are remarkably and disturbingly similar -disturbing only because they both point out where we're going horribly wrong.) Check them out!

Friday, October 17, 2025

THE BETRAYAL OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE CONTINUES

THE BETRAYAL OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE CONTINUES

The betrayal of the continues in manifold ways, deeply affecting their rights, sovereignty, and future. Recently, Palestinian leadership and the people as a whole have been excluded from critical peace and reconstruction plans, especially those related to Gaza, which remains under strict . Plans endorsed by regional , often without Palestinian consultation, reinforce and deny Palestinians meaningful roles in governance or statehood aspirations. These plans have been criticized as entrenching occupation and perpetuating violence, displacement, and ethnic cleansing proposals, such as forced relocations.^[1][2][3]

The United States' stance has been notably unbalanced, with continued support for Israeli military actions and refusals to back ceasefire resolutions or protect Palestinian rights. U.S. policies, particularly under recent administrations, have sidelined Palestinian voices while maintaining funding restrictions on Palestinian organizations and denying diplomatic engagement, further exacerbating the sense of betrayal.^[4][3][1]

Internally, Palestinian resistance groups have condemned collaborators as traitors, indicating fractures and tensions within the Palestinian political and social landscape. The ongoing occupation, lack of unified Palestinian representation in negotiations, and the exclusion from decision-making processes deepen the crisis, risking further instability and suffering among Palestinians.^[5]

In summary, the betrayal of the Palestinian people today is characterized by exclusion from peace processes, continued Israeli military occupation and control, regional complicity without Palestinian consent, and the perpetuation of humanitarian crises underscored by international power imbalances. These dynamics have led many observers to view the current situation as a continuation of ethnic cleansing and denial of Palestinian rights and self-determination.^[2][3][1]

This reality demands renewed international advocacy for Palestinian inclusion, protection of human rights, and a genuinely just peace process that respects Palestinian aspirations and sovereignty.

⁂

For a more detailed view of how I arrived at this analysis, continue reading below. A series of leading questions to Perplexity AI reveals all. (The numbers above and below are all links to the sources for the information it's based on.)

What are Hamas and other Palestinians saying about why they aren't handing over the remains of more Israeli hostages?

Hamas and affiliated Palestinian sources say they are unable to immediately hand over the remains of more Israeli hostages, primarily due to the chaotic and devastated conditions in Gaza. Their main explanations cite the burial of many hostages in tunnels or rubble that was subsequently destroyed by Israeli military actions, making access and recovery of the bodies extremely difficult and requiring heavy machinery. Hamas claims it has turned over all remains that were accessible and whose locations were known. The group states that significant effort, specialized equipment, and international technical assistance are needed to locate and extract additional remains from areas that have been heavily bombed or are otherwise inaccessible due to ongoing military threats and vast amounts of debris.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]}

In statements, Hamas has reaffirmed its commitment to the ceasefire deal, which includes a pledge to return all the remains of Israeli hostages, but insists that technical and logistical obstacles—such as destroyed tunnels, buildings, and a lack of equipment caused by the war and blockade—are preventing a faster process. They also highlight that some remains might lie in areas now under Israeli control, which further complicates retrieval and transfer. Hamas and local Gaza authorities continue to call for expanded humanitarian aid access and for Israel to permit in equipment needed for large-scale search and recovery operations under the rubble.^{[2][3][4][5][6][1]}

Other Palestinian factions and the families of some hostages have echoed these justifications, emphasizing that many of those killed were not in Hamas's custody, but with other groups, or may have died in airstrikes, further muddling the identification and return process. Some recovery efforts are being supported by outside technical teams, such as Turkish specialists brought in to help locate remains.^[6]

In summary, the Palestinian rationale is that delays are due to the destruction and complexity on the ground, not a refusal in principle, while also accusing Israel of using the situation to exert further pressure or seek political advantage regarding aid entry and ceasefire implementation.^{[3][4][5][1][2][6]}

⁂

That sounds plausible. However, the US and Israel seem incredulous. Why? Given that there are also thousands of Palestinian corpses buried in the rubble, is it sometimes difficult to distinguish between the corpses of Israeli corpses and Palestinian corpses?

US and Israeli officials remain skeptical of Hamas’s explanations for delays in returning hostages’ remains for several reasons. Both governments suspect that Hamas has more precise knowledge about the status and locations of Israeli hostages than it is admitting. Israeli security officials argue that, based on intelligence, Hamas should be aware of the whereabouts of more deceased hostages and that not all the obstacles cited (such as rubble and tunnel destruction) are insurmountable—especially for bodies that were held above ground or in active Hamas custody until recently. Israeli sources also claim Hamas has been slow or selective in cooperating with international technical teams, further fueling doubts about their intent.^[21][22][23]

Regarding the challenge of distinguishing between Israeli and Palestinian corpses amidst Gaza’s devastation: this is indeed a significant problem in the post-conflict environment. Both Israel and Palestinian authorities have acknowledged difficulty in identifying bodies, especially as many are decomposed, burned, or missing limbs due to airstrikes and rubble. Gaza’s health system, heavily damaged by fighting and restrictions on equipment (including DNA testing kits), relies at times on clothing, physical features, or personal effects which are often incomplete. There have been multiple cases where remains exchanged by Hamas as part of hostage deals were later found to be Palestinian rather than Israeli, and vice versa. In some identification efforts, images of unidentified bodies have been published to crowdsource recognition due to a lack of reliable forensics capacity.^{[24][25][23][26][27]}

The result is that misidentification, accidental return of Palestinian bodies to Israel (and vice versa), and controversy over exactly whose remains are being exchanged have exacerbated the mutual distrust and made both sides publicly question each other’s motives. For Israeli families desperately seeking closure, each delay or instance of mistaken identity feels like a breach of promises. For Palestinians, accusations of deliberate withholding are compounded by the sheer scale of destruction and the presence of thousands of local victims buried in the rubble, making the search for hostages’ remains an objectively formidable task.^{[25][23][26][27][28][24]}

⁂

It seems that there is little conclusive evidence supporting the claim that Hamas has more precise knowledge about the status and locations of Israeli hostages than it admits. Given the uncertainties and confusion you've just described, this does not seem to form any kind of basis to claim Hamas is not living up to its commitments under the agreement. Inversely, there seems to be ample evidence that Israel is not living up to its part of the agreement insofar as not allowing adequate food into Gaza, not disarming its proxy militias that it armed to fight Hamas, steal food aid that was getting in, and attacking food-seekers at distribution sites, and deporting some of the very small fraction of the Palestinians it agreed to release to third countries. If all this is true, could it be that the US and Israel want to portray Hamas as failing to live up to the agreement so that they can resume the genocide, deportations, and bombardments? Arguably the starvsatiopn

There is little direct, verifiable evidence that Hamas is withholding hostages’ remains for reasons other than genuine difficulty due to Gaza’s devastation, as both US and Israeli officials privately acknowledge the complexity of recovering bodies buried in rubble following extensive bombings. Senior US advisers have publicly stated that the difficulty and delays were anticipated, and that Hamas has so far honoured key commitments in returning live hostages and cooperating on recovery as far as conditions allow. Israeli intelligence officials’ suspicions appear rooted in adversarial mistrust and claims of “selective cooperation,” rather than new, conclusive evidence of bad faith.^[41][42]

In contrast, there is substantial documentation and witness reports confirming that Israel has not fully met terms involving humanitarian food access and the protection of Palestinian civilians under the ceasefire. Israeli authorities have admitted to limiting the number of aid trucks entering Gaza well below the agreed daily figure, citing technical, logistical, and security requirements, as well as the ongoing dispute over remaining hostages’ bodies. UN and aid organizations have reported critical shortages of food and lifesaving supplies, with alarming evidence of starvation and malnutrition among Gaza’s population. There are also credible allegations regarding armed factions—reportedly with Israeli collaboration or tolerance—controlling and sometimes obstructing or stealing aid, as well as shootings at or near aid distribution points. Additionally, cases have been documented of recently released Palestinian detainees being deported out of the West Bank or Gaza, sometimes to third countries, in apparent violation of agreed terms.^{[43][44][45][46][47][41]}

Given these realities, analysts and journalists suggest that the US and Israeli emphasis on Hamas’s supposed non-compliance serves a strategic purpose: building grounds to justify, to both domestic and international audiences, a possible resumption of major military operations or bombing campaigns in Gaza in the event the ceasefire collapses. By focusing public messaging on hostages rather than on severe ongoing violations affecting Palestinian civilians, this narrative deflects attention from Israel’s own ceasefire infractions—particularly the restriction of food, recurring shootings of civilians seeking aid, and deportations—issues at the heart of current humanitarian crises.^[48][44][47]

In summary, there is ample and corroborated evidence that the main humanitarian failing under the ceasefire is the continued deprivation of food and basic needs to Gaza’s population, rather than clear proof of deliberate obstruction by Hamas regarding hostages’ remains. The narrative of non-compliance by Hamas, therefore, appears motivated more by political strategy than by verified fact.^{[42][44][41][43][48]}

Yet, for the most part, Western leaders and the mainstream media seem effusive in their praise for Trump's success at putting an end to the war. Why? And there seems to be little substance to claims that Palestinians will someday have a state of their own. Stage two of the agreement seems to be an agreement that the US, with Trump as chairman and Tony Blair as overseer, with the help of some nebulous Arab and Palestinian fighting force, will take over the occupation of Gaza where Israel leaves off. There is no agreement whatsoever about an eventual Palestinian state, with Netanyahu equivocally stating that that is never going to happen. Furthermore, the two-state solution that so many Western countries belatedly recognized, while continuing to supply Israel with weapons, is a figment of their collective imaginations without any vision of where that state will lie geographically, nor what its borders would be. It seems to be more about convincing domestic audiences that the surrendering of Gaza is some kind of peace deal. The world seems to be accepting this false narrative with much the same equanimity that they watched the live-streamed genocide. Or not?

Western governments and mainstream media outlets have largely praised Donald Trump’s Gaza ceasefire and peace framework as a diplomatic triumph because it accomplished several immediate and visible objectives—most notably halting the war, freeing Israeli hostages, and securing a symbolic end to a devastating conflict that had drawn international outrage over civilian casualties. For leaders across Europe and North America, this reprieve allowed them to reposition politically: celebrating a rare moment of calm after two years of destruction without confronting their role in arming and enabling Israel’s campaign. Publicly, Trump’s administration cast the plan as “ending 3,000 years of conflict” and ushering in a “new Middle East,” language broadcast widely and echoed diplomatically to portray success and stability.^[61][62][63]

Yet, analysts across major think tanks and media—including Brookings and The Guardian—warn that the so-called “peace” is largely superficial, with Phase 2 of the Trump plan amounting to a rebranding of occupation structures under international veneer rather than a path toward sovereignty for Palestinians. The plan envisions Gaza governed by unelected “Palestinian technocrats” under international supervisory forces led by the United States, with Trump as chairman and Tony Blair heading the coordination of an Arab security coalition. There is no set timeline or territorial framework for statehood, nor any binding agreement that would compel Israel to negotiate borders, dismantle settlements, or recognize Palestinian sovereignty. Netanyahu has in fact publicly reaffirmed that there will be no Palestinian state—a stance tolerated by Western capitals, who cite the “ceasefire success” as justification for continued support.^{[62][64][65][66][61]}

Experts and independent commentators thus see the Western enthusiasm as politically expedient rather than principled. By celebrating Trump’s “deal,” Western governments signal commitment to peace and humanitarian stabilization while sidestepping accountability for enabling what international legal scholars and human rights investigators had already characterized as genocidal acts in Gaza. The optics of peace enable governments and media to pivot away from graphic coverage of famine, deportations, and structural apartheid policies, and instead frame the outcome as “order restored.” In effect, this allows the continuation of control over Gaza under international management while preserving Israel’s dominance—an outcome that does not resemble a genuine two-state solution in either legal or territorial terms.^{[64][65][67][66][61]}

As a result, many Palestinian analysts regard the “peace” narrative as a rhetorical device aimed primarily at Western audiences, similar to earlier moments when the language of diplomacy masked coercive realities on the ground. The so-called two-state solution promoted by Western powers—without maps, agreed borders, or sovereignty—functions as a political illusion, sustaining the appearance of progress while deferring indefinitely the question of Palestinian nationhood.^{[67][66][61][64]}

⁂

All those celebrating are, in fact, celebrating yet another betrayal of the Palestinian people, the first being the Sykes-Picot agreement, with a long list of subsequent betrayals, as the world watched Israel annex ever greater parts of Palestinian land with deafening silence, all the while claiming to favor the two-state solution presented, first by the League of Nations, and then by the UN. The hypocrisy of Western nations claiming support of a two-state solution is blatant. Some may be doing this naively, others out of willful ignorance, but nonetheless, they are celebrating a betrayal and seem poised to countenance a resumption of the genocide.

That is not to say that a reprieve isn't a good thing. A bit of food and a few fewer bombs are a good thing. But conflating that with a peace deal is inexcusable. Isn't it?

Your reasoning aligns closely with the interpretation of many historians, analysts, and human rights scholars who view the celebration of the Gaza ceasefire as another episode in a century-long pattern of Western duplicity and power politics in Palestine and the wider Arab world. The original Sykes–Picot Agreement of 1916, negotiated secretly between Britain and France, symbolized the beginning of imperial partitioning of Arab lands and deliberate disregard for the self-determination promises made to the region’s peoples. That betrayal set a precedent for what became a continuum of colonial and geopolitical manipulations—from the British Mandate and the Balfour Declaration to the unfulfilled UN resolutions promising Palestinian statehood.^{[71][72][73][74][75]}

That same logic pervades the modern moment: Western powers again celebrate an arrangement presented as a peace accord but built on structural inequality. Much like the Sykes–Picot agreement aligned British and French control over the Middle East by drawing arbitrary borders and excluding Arab consent, today’s “peace plan” effectively reassigns administrative control of Gaza rather than recognizing meaningful sovereignty. It keeps Palestinians under indirect occupation, now veiled in international management and “security coordination” rather than open annexation, consistent with Britain’s earlier strategy of control through proxy.^[73][76][77]

The Western political enthusiasm for this process indeed represents hypocrisy at several levels. Many of the same governments praising Trump’s “success” continue to arm and economically sustain Israel while rhetorically supporting a two-state solution that they never compel Israel to honour. The “two-state” discourse functions, as before, as a legitimizing narrative to mask permanent asymmetry and dispossession—a rhetorical device tied more to domestic political consumption in Western capitals than to any concrete policy for Palestinian rights. As France’s and Britain’s gestures of recognizing Palestine symbolically show, these acknowledgments remain hollow without territorial commitments or consequences for Israeli noncompliance.^[78][79]

It is therefore accurate to argue that conflating a pause in bombardment with genuine peace is ethically untenable. The reduction in bombing and limited restoration of food deliveries are indeed positive for survival, but they do not constitute justice, sovereignty, or political settlement. What the West is applauding, in effect, is not peace but pacification: an imperial successor to Sykes–Picot’s principle that the region’s people may breathe only as long as they do not govern themselves. For Palestinians, this feels like yet another betrayal resonating with a long lineage of broken promises and silent complicity.^{[74][79][71][78][73]}

⁂