Glenn Carle” post_date=”December 05, 2025 06:28″ pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/politics/fo-exclusive-is-the-ukraine-war-ending-on-putins-terms-decoding-trumps-28-point-plan/” pid=”159463″ post-content=”

Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI Senior Partner Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer who now advises companies, governments and organizations on geopolitical risk, dissect US President Donald Trump’s proposed peace deal to end the Russia-Ukraine war. They weigh whether this framework, presented as a ceasefire of perhaps long duration, is a genuine American-led proposal or a plan from Russia. They also analyze the strategic logic behind its demands, and the profound implications it carries for Ukraine’s survival, Europe’s security and America’s global posture.

The Russian Roots of the “Trump Plan”

The plan, initially presented as a 28-point framework, has faced intense scrutiny regarding its origin, as it is written in very stilted English. A number of linguists, diplomats and experts who read the document noted that the ostensibly American English text “really does sound like it has been directly translated from the Russian”. The truth appears to be that Russia provided the proposed acceptable peace arrangement to the Americans, who then translated it and presented it as Trump’s plan.

This didn’t go over well, even among some of Trump’s supporters in Congress. The initial plan comprised 28 points and has since been somewhat modified. However, as Glenn notes, the plan’s fundamental essence remains Russia’s starting position. This method of introduction is strategically significant in negotiation. As Glenn states, “whoever drafts and frames the initial points of discussion has won the argument almost”, because all subsequent parties are forced to react to the presented framework.

A ceasefire, not a peace agreement

Fundamentally, the proposed agreement is less a peace agreement and more a ceasefire of a potentially long duration. It requires that Ukraine withdraw from the territory it still controls. The Ukrainians have stated this is a “non-starter,” but there appears to be ongoing debate and potential “territorial adjustments”.

Ukrainians, according to Atul, have “their backs to the wall and a gun to their head”. Ukraine’s economy has “cratered”. It has run out of men, with desertions occurring on the front lines. Equipment is no longer consistently forthcoming from the US. Ukraine is scared that if Trump stops intelligence sharing, or any kind of assistance — which he has already done once before — then the country will be even more vulnerable. They are stuck between their own perilous situation and their dependence on the US. On top of this, there is a “terrible corruption scandal” raging at the heart of their government. The Ukrainians do not have “any good cards” and have no real choice but to go along with Trump.

They have strong incentives and imperatives to find a way to stop the war. However, even with their seemingly hopeless situation, they have no plans to cede territory that they control. There are still likely to be territorial adjustments, but, as Glenn suspects, they will be less substantial than the Russian position, which demands all Russian-speaking provinces, including Luhansk and the rest of Donetsk.

Security and military limitations

In exchange for territorial concessions, Ukraine would receive “security guarantees,” which are currently unspecified and verbal. This is especially concerning for Ukraine, as it has received guarantees before — in 1991 when the Soviet Union broke up, and Ukraine surrendered its nuclear weapons, and again in 2014 via the Minsk accords — neither of which amounted to much.

However, as Atul points out, a significant catch in the new document states that if Ukraine acts unilaterally against Russia, the guarantees are off. It’s almost as if the US has performed a diplomatic “U-turn.” Ukraine faces the prospect of being thrown down the Dinprot (also known as Dnieper) River, which the Russians actually want to be the national border. Atul suspects that the Russians will try to cross the river and take Odessa, as well.

Regarding military limitations, Russia demanded that Ukraine never be part of NATO, a point that the US appears to have conceded. Europeans have injected themselves into the process, pushing for a security guarantee in the form of “non-NATO but West European soldiers” deployed in Ukraine as a trip wire security guarantee.

Russia initially sought to limit Ukraine’s military to 100,000 personnel, which is essentially a constabulary force — the same number imposed on Germany post-Versailles. However, Russia appears to have made a concession, and the Ukrainian military limit is shaping up to be around 600,000. Glenn sees this number as a reasonable and significant military size, especially since Ukraine cannot afford its current force of 850,000, and, if it is not actively fighting, there is no need for a military of that size.

De facto, the final outcome of the war is expected to be a ceasefire with forces remaining in place. This means that Russia will have absorbed 90% of the Russian-speaking territories of Ukraine. While Ukraine may not formally acknowledge this loss, it would be unable to change it. The security guarantees for Ukraine may amount to the substance of some non-NATO European soldiers and some American or NATO planes deployed to Poland. There has also been talk of unfreezing half of Russia’s assets and using that money for Ukrainian development. However, in practice, that would mean Trump would have the money deposited into “American bank accounts,” ultimately benefiting the US rather than Ukraine.

Rehabilitating Russia and future threats

Crucially, many clauses are steps to rehabilitate Russia and bring it back into the international community. This includes lifting sanctions and reinstating Russia as a member of the G8. The ceasefire is primarily pro-Moscow by acknowledging its conquests and providing Ukraine with only short-term survival and weak, verbal guarantees.

Many analysts argue that Russia will become emboldened after this “peace plan”, increasing the threat to the Baltic states. One extreme argument from the French Chief of Defense is that French mothers should prepare to lose their children, and that a major confrontation with Russia is coming.

Conversely, some within the Pentagon and the Republican establishment argue that China is the primary enemy. They advocate for a “reverse Henry Kissinger” strategy: ending the war to wean Russia off China and isolate Beijing. Besides, they also think Ukraine is corrupt and that it is no longer a benefit to the US. Ultimately, they believe China is highly vulnerable in energy, as it imports most of its energy, and that if the US blocks the Malacca Strait and Russia stops supplying energy, China would be “toast within weeks”. Glenn views this as “delusional craziness,” which would lead to another world war.

However, Glenn believes that Russia made a terrible strategic error in its invasion, something it felt it had no choice but to do. Not only has the war gone worse for Russia than it could have imagined, but it was also a result of Russia’s failure in its other strategic policy, which was to stop Ukraine’s turn to the West via covert action and disinformation. This strategy failed due to the will of the Ukrainian people.

Glenn disagrees that there will be a war between Russia and Europe or the US. What is certain is that Russia’s ongoing destabilization efforts focused on border states like Moldova, Georgia, the Baltics and Poland, as well as the US, UK and France, through aggressive intelligence operations and actions aimed at installing “favorably inclined political figures” will continue. This tactic mirrors historical interventions, such as the KGB spending $200 million to interfere in post-war European elections, significantly more than the $20 million the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) spent in Italy in 1948 to elect a pro-democratic official or party.

[Kaitlyn Diana edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

” post-content-short=” Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI Senior Partner Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer who now advises companies, governments and organizations on geopolitical risk, dissect US President Donald Trump’s proposed peace deal to end the Russia-Ukraine war. They weigh whether this framework, presented…” post_summery=”In this section of the November 2025 FO° Exclusive, Atul Singh and Glenn Carle dissect US President Donald Trump’s 28-point peace plan to end the Russia-Ukraine War. They explore the proposal’s origins and examine whether it’s a ceasefire, capitulation or a new geopolitical reality in Eastern Europe. They also delve into Ukraine’s precarious position and how this agreement could embolden Moscow.” post-date=”Dec 05, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Is the Ukraine War Ending on Putin’s Terms? Decoding Trump’s 28-Point Plan” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-is-the-ukraine-war-ending-on-putins-terms-decoding-trumps-28-point-plan”>

Glenn Carle” post_date=”December 04, 2025 07:05″ pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/fo-exclusive-global-lightning-roundup-of-november-2025/” pid=”159452″ post-content=”

Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI Senior Partner Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer who now advises companies, governments and organizations on geopolitical risk, analyze a month of profound global instability and change. They examine how intense political polarization in the US and an increasingly opportunistic American foreign policy are tearing down the postwar order already under threat from multiple crises.

American political turmoil and polarization

The US domestic landscape was marked by “high drama”. Events included the death of former Vice President Dick Cheney and the continuing saga of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. Political infighting escalated dramatically as Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene announced her resignation, claiming she was cast aside by “MAGA Inc.” and replaced by neocons, big pharma, big tech, the military-industrial war complex, foreign leaders and an elite donor class incapable of relating to “real Americans”.

Despite Democrats securing election victories in Virginia, New Jersey and New York City, political unity remained elusive. Zohran Mamdani, whom Atul describes as a “Monsieur Bling Bling” with “nice rings and handbands,” won the mayoral election in New York City. His victory speech included a quote from Jawaharlal Nehru and was followed by “brash Bollywood music,” specifically the song Dhoom Machale, which means rock the party or cause an explosion.

Mamdani later flew for a photo opportunity with President Donald Trump, reflecting what Atul characterizes as more political theater in what Chief Strategy Officer Peter Isackson would call a “hyperreal world.”

Not only are Democrats fighting Republicans, but they are fighting their own party members as well. Despite state victories, some Democrats voted alongside Republicans to terminate the government shutdown. The left also wants to get rid of Chuck Schumer in the Senate. Atul describes how emotions were running so high that some individuals at the National Press Club wished “disease and suffering” upon Schumer. Centrist Democrats think the left has “lost the plot,” illustrating “civil wars within civil wars” in America today.

As Glenn says, the US is currently more polarized than at any time since the Civil War 150 years ago. The overall political environment in Washington, DC, as Atul characterizes it, is the most toxic since at least 2008 or 2010, when he first came to the city. He notes that polarization has always been present, but its intensity today is new.

However, Glenn raises a counterpoint suggesting that intense political labeling, while seemingly new, has historical continuity. His father was denounced as a communist for advocating for adding fluoride to the water 60 or 70 years ago to prevent tooth cavities in children. Today. Glenn and his colleagues have been pilloried as champions of “communist electricity” for suggesting that windmills could provide electricity for a power grid.

Power plays abroad: intervention, drugs and shifting alliances

Against the backdrop of domestic strife, military action against Venezuela might provide the “uniting glue”. The USS Gerald R. Ford, the world’s largest warship, arrived in Latin American waters to purportedly combat drug smuggling. This deployment denudes US strength in the Middle East and Eastern Asia. Rumors are rife in Washington, DC, regarding Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s desire to get rid of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

Venezuela’s neighbor, Colombia, is not happy. The Trump administration revoked Colombian President Gustavo Petro’s visa after he gave a rather punchy speech at the UN and then addressed protesting against the Israel-Hamas War. Now, Colombia — a historically loyal US ally — has stopped intelligence sharing with the US.

Glenn describes the deployment of the aircraft carrier as an example of “supply side counter narcotics policy.” This is a primarily Republican policy spanning 60 years that focuses on stopping drug suppliers that has largely failed. Conversely, the demand-side approach, often favored by Democrats, argues that supply will inevitably exist as long as demand exists. Narcotics will keep coming to America because of the law of drug trade, which is really the “law of economics and human nature.” Glenn quotes a senior military official involved in counternarcotics efforts who noted that all governmental efforts since the early 1970s “War on Drugs” have failed to change the street price of any drug in America, asserting that stopping drug smuggling is “functionally impossible”.

Across the pond in Britain, the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) faces major trouble after its Director General had to resign. The “Beeb” (as the BBC is informally called) was accused of stitching together two parts of Trump’s January 6, 2021, speech, allegedly creating a false impression of his remarks before the US Capitol storming. Critics frequently accuse the organization of being left-wing. Trump has threatened to sue the “woke BBC” for $1 billion.

Between threatening to sue the BBC, Trump hosted a series of high-profile, controversial foreign guests. Syrian President Abu Muhammad Al Jolani (now Ahmed al-Sharaa) visited the White House, exchanging his battle fatigues for a suit. Trump gave Jolani some perfume, which Atul says made for “excellent television”.

Trump also hosted the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Muhammad bin Salman (MBS). Trump complimented MBS and strongly defended him against an “impertinent journalist” who raised the subject of the strangling and chopping up of Jamal Khashoggi. Trump called ABC News “fake news” and said that the reporter was “wrong” for “embarrassing a guest of America” for a “controversial and unlikable” journalist. He then defended MBS, saying he has done great work and made substantial investments in the US. Business tycoon Elon Musk (seeking billions from MBS) and Portuguese football player Cristiano Ronaldo (receiving millions from MBS to play in Saudi Arabia) attended the dinner Trump hosted for MBS.

Another guest, Hungarian leader Viktor Orbán, secured an opt-out from America’s sanctions on Russian oil. Orban, whom Atul describes as “canny and clever and cunning”, managed this deal despite Hungary’s reliance on Russian energy imports. In exchange, Hungary agreed to increase its purchases of American liquefied natural gas (LNG).

Instability on the rise: global flashpoints and economic deals

Close to Hungary, in Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (the “Sultan,” as Atul refers to him) saw prosecutors seek a prison sentence of up to 2,352 years for Ekrem İmamoğlu, the Mayor of Istanbul and Erdoğan’s key political challenger. Imamoglu is currently detained on alleged corruption charges. Turkey is going “hot turkey if not cold turkey on the idea of democracy”.

Bombs went off in both Delhi and Islamabad. In Bangladesh, a court sentenced former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to death. In India, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won elections in Bihar. Critics say that the transfer of 10,000 rupees (about 15% of the per capita income) to every woman’s bank account helped. One could argue that the BJP literally bought the election and that India now has competitive populism with different parties competing to offer freebies to voters.

In Africa, jihadists are “on the ascendant.” In Mali, they blockaded the capital, Bamako, and executed a social media influencer. Armed bandits also abducted over 300 students and a dozen teachers from St. Mary’s private Catholic school in Nigeria.

Finally, the Trump administration reached a framework trade agreement with Switzerland. Tariffs on Swiss imports were reduced from 39% to 15%. Swiss companies are to invest $200 billion in the US, including $50 billion from Roche and $23 billion from Novartis. US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer claims the deal would help the US reduce deficits in pharmaceuticals and other vital sectors. Despite this economic success, the Swiss Economy Minister, Guy Parmelin, was accused of “selling the Swiss soul to the devil,” a charge he denies.

[Kaitlyn Diana edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

” post-content-short=” Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI Senior Partner Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer who now advises companies, governments and organizations on geopolitical risk, analyze a month of profound global instability and change. They examine how intense political polarization in the US and an…” post_summery=”In this section of the November 2025 FO° Exclusive, Atul Singh and Glenn Carle track a month of turmoil as American polarization deepens and governance weakens. Power plays from Washington to Caracas and elsewhere expose frayed institutions and opportunistic alliances. Global crises from Turkey to Africa reveal an accelerating unravelling of assumptions that once anchored the postwar order.” post-date=”Dec 04, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Global Lightning Roundup of November 2025″ slug-data=”fo-exclusive-global-lightning-roundup-of-november-2025″>

Erik Geurts” post_date=”December 03, 2025 07:11″ pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/politics/fo-talks-chiles-political-reset-mandatory-voting-economic-crisis-and-a-right-wing-wave/” pid=”159429″ post-content=”

Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh and consultant Erik Geurts provide a deep dive into Chile’s recent political transformations. They analyze the socioeconomic factors, the impact of the 2019 mass protests and the dynamics of the 2025 presidential election. Geurts argues that while the country boasts a stable economy, deep-seated income inequality and pervasive frustration with moderate political parties led to a societal upheaval in 2019, fueling the search for radical alternatives.

Chile’s unique economic landscape

Khattar Singh begins the conversation by asking Geurts to quickly summarize what makes Chile unique. Geurts explains that Chile is an interesting case due to its relatively high development rate, boasting one of the highest GDPs per capita in South America, second only to Uruguay. A significant differentiator is the formal economy: only 30% of the population works in the informal sector, a stark contrast to Peru and Bolivia, where that figure ranges between 70% and 85%. Chile also possesses the best universities in Spanish-speaking South America and a generally good educational system.

However, Geurts notes that Chile shares similarities with other Latin American nations, particularly its reliance on exporting minerals and foodstuffs. Furthermore, Chile is exceptionally dependent on one single mineral — copper — making it the world’s largest copper producer. Critically, despite its economic success, Chile suffers from high unequal income distribution, demonstrated by a high Gini coefficient of 430, which is higher than neighboring countries like Peru, Uruguay or Argentina. While the outside world views Chile as an “economic miracle” with high growth rates, better education and healthcare, Chileans themselves often feel they could be doing better, especially given the high cost of living and the limited opportunities for low-income people.

The frustration of 2019 and political polarization

Khattar Singh steers the conversation toward the drastic political changes since the 2019 mass protests. Geurts details how this social upheaval came unexpectedly while the country was under a conservative center-right president. The protests were triggered by an increase in public transport costs, quickly expanding beyond Santiago to include students, workers, the unemployed and poor people across the countryside. The core issue was widespread frustration and the demand for more from politics.

Historically, Chilean politics had alternated predictably between a center-left bloc (like former President Michelle Bachelet) and a center-right bloc (like former President Sebastián Piñera). Voters grew frustrated because they saw little difference between the two main blocs and felt that their votes led to “nothing happening”. This frustration triggered a kind of polarization, leading people to turn toward extreme political views.

On the left, this brought a “new kid on the block,” Gabriel Boric, a student leader during the upheaval who later became president. On the right, the more liberal center-right shrunk, while a more radical right-wing party, the Republican Party of current presidential candidate José Antonio Kast, gained strength. Geurts also highlights the emergence of even more radical figures, such as Johannes Kaiser, a libertarian who wants to slash the government and crack down on crime.

On the left, while the candidate Jeannette Jara is a communist, Geurts offers a nuanced view, explaining that her track record as a labor minister shows her to be quite moderate. She was highly effective at brokering deals with opposition parties to achieve significant policy goals, such as reducing the workweek from 45 to 40 hours and establishing a basic retirement schedule for poor people.

The 2025 election and mandatory voting

Khattar Singh notes that the 2025 presidential election, which ended its first round on November 16 and will culminate in a runoff on December 14, has fundamentally been shaped by the anger and dissatisfaction following the 2019 mass protests. Geurts explains that voters are “on the move,” seeking more radical options because they believe the center parties have failed to deliver change. Currently, electoral priorities are focused on the crime rate, immigration and unemployment, topics more strongly addressed by the right.

A major factor influencing the results was the introduction of mandatory voting, which was a consequence of the 2019 events. Previously, less than half the population voted, but with mandatory voting, the turnout nearly doubled. Geurts points out that the new voters are often those more alienated from politics, less interested in complex proposals and thus more likely to vote for “simple solutions”.

This environment fostered the rise of third-party candidates like Franco Parisi, a populist who tried to distinguish himself as “neither a communist nor a fascist”. Parisi proposed simple solutions, such as eliminating value-added tax on medicines and lowering politicians’ incomes, and used populist tactics like calling career politicians a “cast”.

Regarding the global perception that Chile has swung structurally to the right, Geurts warns Khattar Singh that news often simplifies complex situations. While the vote currently favors the right due to immediate priorities, Geurts argues that structurally, the center-left and center-right voters are usually balanced (around 50% each), and the vote shifts based on current priorities.

Contrasting visions for Chile’s future

The presidential runoff pits Kast against Jara, offering Chileans a complex choice. Geurts details their sharply contrasting political leanings:

— Jara represents the traditional left, emphasizing protection for the poor, investment in healthcare and education, increased taxes on the wealthy and subsidies for the disadvantaged.

— Kast represents the far right, advocating for a better environment for private enterprise, relaxing labor laws and lowering taxes for companies.

Their approaches also diverge significantly on the critical issues of crime and immigration. Jara proposes more technocratic solutions, such as establishing intelligence services to track the money to reduce crime, acknowledging that these measures take time to bear fruit. Her plans for migration aim to help migrants adapt to Chilean society.

In contrast, Kast proposes radical, immediate and “Trumpian” measures. He wants to significantly reduce migration, proposing 2,000 flights to remove illegal immigrants (who would pay for their own tickets), and suggesting excavating a ditch along the northern border, utilizing the military and police for enforcement. Geurts suggests that if the population seeks immediate, radical solutions, they might favor Kast.

Potential for political deadlock and regional trends

Khattar Singh expresses concern that even if Kast wins, he could face a political deadlock, as his party lacks a congressional majority. Geurts confirms this, noting that Kast and his allies (the center party of Piñera and Kaiser) would fall short of a majority in the House of Representatives and hold only half the seats in the Senate. Kast would need to build coalitions, possibly with Parisi’s party. Geurts views this need for cooperation as beneficial for democracy, noting that former President Boric also had to work with moderate opposition to get things done. However, this necessity prevents major structural changes, risking renewed voter frustration and a vicious cycle of political shifts.

Finally, the discussion turns to why such “drastic changes politically” are occurring across Latin America, citing examples like Argentina, Bolivia and Ecuador. Geurts argues that domestic factors primarily drive these changes — voters reacting to crises in their own countries, such as Argentina’s deep economic crisis or Bolivia’s lack of dollars and fuel.

Regarding the increasing prominence of “Trump-like figures” in Latin America (such as President Nayib Bukele in El Salvador and President Javier Milei in Argentina), Geurts advises caution in using the caricature, noting that figures like Milei and US President Donald Trump differ significantly in power and economic policy. However, he notes that leaders like El Salvador’s Bukele have gained popularity by effectively addressing major problems, such as crime. Geurts concludes that a common frustration pervades reasonably wealthy and democratic Latin American societies: people do not feel progress, witness widespread corruption and see poverty reduction stall. This leads voters to seek radical solutions, sometimes from the populist left but increasingly from the populist right, particularly since many left-wing populists have “messed up with the economy”.

Khattar Singh ends the conversation by emphasizing that the mandatory voting requirement has significantly shaped the outcome and will determine Chile’s future.

[Kaitlyn Diana edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

” post-content-short=” Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh and consultant Erik Geurts provide a deep dive into Chile’s recent political transformations. They analyze the socioeconomic factors, the impact of the 2019 mass protests and the dynamics of the 2025 presidential election. Geurts argues that…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Fair Observer’s Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks to Consultant Erik Geurts on the 2025 Presidential elections in Chile. Together, they unpack the first-round results, mandatory voting’s massive turnout and why crime, migration and unequal income distribution pushed voters away from the center. They compare José Antonio Kast’s tough-on-crime, anti-immigration pitch with Jeannette Jara’s social-welfare, technocratic approach — and explain how coalition math will shape any president’s power.” post-date=”Dec 03, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Chile’s Political Reset: Mandatory Voting, Economic Crisis and a Right-Wing Wave” slug-data=”fo-talks-chiles-political-reset-mandatory-voting-economic-crisis-and-a-right-wing-wave”>

Sofia Hamilton” post_date=”December 01, 2025 06:54″ pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/politics/fo-talks-america-on-edge-ice-raids-campus-killings-and-the-rise-of-political-violence/” pid=”159394″ post-content=”

Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh and Young Voices spokesperson Sophia Hamilton discuss the resurgence of political violence in the United States, mainly aggressive raids by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Their conversation traces how immigration enforcement, expanding surveillance, collapsing dialogue and deepening partisan hostility have formed a single, combustible ecosystem. Hamilton argues that America is entering a period where institutional distrust, punitive rhetoric and social media pressure are equally eroding civil liberties and public safety.

Infamous ICE raids

Khattar Singh begins with the raids that have ignited the fiercest public backlash. Hamilton explains that the issue splits Americans into two camps: those who want undocumented immigrants “deported by whatever means necessary,” and those who view the raids as unlawful and indiscriminate. The turning point came when federal agents began detaining day laborers in broad daylight outside Home Depot stores in Los Angeles — not the criminals the government initially claimed it would target.

The agents’ appearance intensified public fear: Many wore face coverings, concealed identification or looked, as Hamilton describes, like “random men on the street.” When US President Donald Trump deployed the National Guard and Marines over objections from California’s state and local leaders, demonstrations exploded. Similar anger surfaced in other cities, amplified by the viral footage of a raid at the Hyundai Motor Company’s Georgia plant, where South Korean workers were arrested and deported.

The backlash has forced ICE to become more infrequent and covert. The raids continue, she says, but with far less publicity.

Khattar Singh and Hamilton turn to the deeper issue: a legal immigration system so slow and expensive that would-be applicants wait years, even as it remains comparatively easy to enter the country unlawfully. Hamilton stresses that violent offenders shouldn’t be on US soil, yet the current guerrilla tactics sweep up noncriminals, sometimes deporting people to countries they have little connection to. The gap between stated goals and actual outcomes drives fear and public distrust.

Rising surveillance in America

Khattar Singh shifts to a second trend: the tightening of US border scrutiny. Phones, social-media posts and political memes are now cited in visa denials, including a case where a traveler was reportedly barred after officers found a meme of US Vice President JD Vance.

This has triggered great concern that the US is drifting toward a surveillance-heavy model more associated with authoritarian states. Yet she believes the private-sector dimension is equally troubling. Americans have traded away control of their personal data to tech platforms, making it easy for the government to access information indirectly. Hamilton notes that many people “don’t really think about the security of their data,” or assume it is already so compromised that privacy no longer feels recoverable.

Free-speech norms, Hamilton argues, are deteriorating alongside these trends. Americans flip-flop because they support expression only when it aligns with their own views. This division creates fertile ground for censorship impulses on both the left and the right.

Polarization in America

Hamilton and Khattar Singh then examine why political seesawing has intensified. Using Virginia as an example, Hamilton highlights how federal dynamics can override party identity. The state’s large population of federal workers suffered job losses and months-long unpaid labor during the historically long government shutdown, which lasted from October 1 to November 12; Hamilton recalls constituents concluding, “I totally get it,” when they voted against the incumbent party.

This back-and-forth pattern mirrors a national cycle: Trump to Joe Biden to Trump again. With each shift, long-term policymaking becomes more difficult. Hamilton argues that continuity now comes from the administrative state — the vast bureaucracy of unelected officials who issue thousands of regulations annually while Congress passes only a handful of laws. She calls the system “ginormous” and “bloated,” and warns that delegating so much power to agencies the people didn’t elect distances government from democratic accountability.

The result, she suggests, is a country governed by permanent staff while elected leaders trade control every few years — a structure that exacerbates polarization rather than moderates it.

Politics on college campuses

The conversation closes with the place where polarization has turned deadly. The killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk on a college campus, Hamilton says, should have been a national reckoning. Instead, many people celebrated it, including educators who later lost their jobs. For Hamilton, it proved that political hatred has merged with social-media performance culture.

She recalls watching members of Congress pursue “gotcha” moments on social media during hearings instead of listening to experts — behavior students inevitably model. On campus, that dynamic produces hostility rather than dialogue, with speech codes, disinvitations and ideological litmus tests tightening the space for open debate.

Hamilton argues that universities must begin by treating “all speech as equal,” regardless of ideology. Suppressing either side, she warns, fuels resentment and can escalate into violence. She also rejects the idea that speech itself is violence; words can lead to violence, but disagreement is not harmful. Cutting off friends or classmates over political differences, a trend she sees among young people across the spectrum, only deepens the divide and stunts personal growth.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

” post-content-short=” Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh and Young Voices spokesperson Sophia Hamilton discuss the resurgence of political violence in the United States, mainly aggressive raids by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Their conversation traces how immigration enforcement,…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Sophia Hamilton examine how aggressive ICE raids, border surveillance and political rhetoric have intensified polarization across the United States. Hamilton argues that a broken immigration system and bloated administrative state fuel American anger, while social media dynamics worsen violence. Suppressing speech and celebrating hostility undermines democratic norms.” post-date=”Dec 01, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: America on Edge: ICE Raids, Campus Killings and the Rise of Political Violence” slug-data=”fo-talks-america-on-edge-ice-raids-campus-killings-and-the-rise-of-political-violence”>

Mikael Pir-Budagyan” post_date=”November 30, 2025 06:22″ pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/region/europe/fo-talks-the-future-of-europe-how-war-and-migration-are-fueling-right-wing-politics/” pid=”159386″ post-content=”

Fair Observer’s Chief Strategy Officer Peter Isackson and Mikael Pir-Budagyan, an international consultant specializing in European political dynamics, discuss how Russia’s war in Ukraine and migration pressures are feeding right-wing politics across Europe. The focus is Central and Eastern Europe, especially the Visegrád region, comprising the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia. However, the conversation addresses a bigger worry: whether Europe can sustain unity and security as war, refugees and a more transactional United States test its institutions.

Populism and migration in the Czech Republic

Pir-Budagyan starts with the Czech elections that has likely propelled former Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš back to the center of power. He sees the result as democracy in action, not decay, pointing to high turnout. He argues that “the recent elections… are anything but a surprise.” The new coalition, led by Babiš’s ANO party with right-wing partners including the Motorists and the far-right Social Democratic Party (SPD), holds a parliamentary majority. Its long-term stability, however, remains uncertain.

Babiš’s agenda is rooted in domestic sentiment: resentment over benefits perceived to go to outsiders, suspicion of intrusion by the European Union and a tougher stance on migration. The Czech Republic is pressing for exemptions from EU migration rules and has taken in a large refugee population, mostly Ukrainians.

That influx has turned into a political fault line. Ukrainians were welcomed in 2022 with sympathy that contrasted with the region’s hostility toward Middle Eastern and North African refugees in 2015. But Pir-Budagyan argues that the mood shifted as pressures on housing and public spending mounted. Even if the economic impact is mixed, politics follows perception: “What matters is optics.” Populists exploit the belief that refugees are prioritized over citizens, keeping migration central to Czech debates even as the rate of arrival has slowed.

Visegrád politics and the war in Ukraine

Isackson and Pir-Budagyan turn to the Visegrád Four. Once a coherent bloc, it has largely stalled because Hungary and Slovakia have diverged from Poland and the Czech Republic on Ukraine. With Babiš back, Pir-Budagyan expects tougher EU bargaining: Unanimity rules allow another government to threaten vetoes. Still, he cautions against treating Babiš as a political clone of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán; their domestic incentives differ.

On the battlefield, Pir-Budagyan sees grim continuity. Russia is grinding forward in a war of attrition, aiming to drain Ukraine’s manpower and resources. While Russia’s daily battlefield progress may appear small, the trajectory of the conflict is not linear, and operational successes have often been achieved through sustained pressure on Ukraine’s defenses. The conflict has also exposed uneven European commitment. Eastern-flank states have delivered more aid relative to their size, while many Western and Southern governments have paired lofty rhetoric with limited material follow-through. EU tools help, but were improvised for a shock the Union wasn’t built to manage.

Isackson wonders if Poland’s support is slipping. Pir-Budagyan disagrees: Poland still casts itself as Ukraine’s principal advocate inside Europe. Agricultural disputes with the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv matter, but he frames them as negotiation leverage with the Belgian capital of Brussels, not as a strategic retreat.

EU resilience, NATO and Europe’s identity crisis

Pressed on whether the EU might implode, Pir-Budagyan argues that membership’s economic and social benefits make the Union more durable than pessimists claim. Yet durability doesn’t equal coherence. Unanimity and national splits still blunt Europe’s ability to act as a unified geopolitical player, and unresolved eurozone questions — especially debt burden-sharing — are harder under wartime spending.

The administration of US President Donald Trump adds another strain. Isackson argues that Washington is shifting more of the Ukraine burden onto Europe and treating NATO transactionally. Pir-Budagyan replies that US pressure for higher European defense spending is bipartisan and long-standing, even if Trump enforces it more bluntly. His guide to decoding Trump is to “take Trump seriously but not literally.” Public threats, he notes, often soften through bureaucratic process and private deal-making.

Europe’s response has been a transatlantic dance: bigger defense pledges and expanded purchases of US arms to stay relevant to Washington. Pir-Budagyan notes the contradiction between talk of European strategic autonomy and rising dependence on US weapons and energy. For Isackson, this feeds a sovereignty and identity crisis — Europeans feel subordinate to Washington, while many Central Europeans feel constrained by Brussels. These perceptions may be old, but they have been sharpened by war and migration.

Nuclear deterrence, dialogue and diplomacy

Finally, Pir-Budagyan turns to nuclear risk. He argues that Russia’s deterrence efforts and nuclear reminders have worked, sometimes by freezing Western choices. Russian nuclear signaling in 2022 slowed US and European decisions about arms transfers. But constant threats may have a deprecating effect and erode credibility, leaving the public anxious without clear red lines.

Strategic stability is weakening as the US, Russia and China modernize their arsenals. The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the US and Russia is close to expiring with little prospect of a robust successor. US President Donald Trump announced a Strategic Defense Initiative-like Golden Dome and hinted at resuming nuclear testing. Further, Russia has raised ambiguity by broadening its declared grounds for nuclear use. 

Isackson asks whether diplomacy’s decline makes catastrophe more likely. Pir-Budagyan agrees: Dialogue is too often dismissed as appeasement, even though Cold War rivals still negotiated arms-control regimes amid existential hostility. Today, trust is thinner, channels are fewer and the expert communities that once maintained backroom talks are fading. Rebuilding stability will require sustained political will and real resources — and Europe is already late to that task. As the challenges to nuclear security mount, it is especially important to continue the efforts to support risk reduction measures.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

” post-content-short=” Fair Observer’s Chief Strategy Officer Peter Isackson and Mikael Pir-Budagyan, an international consultant specializing in European political dynamics, discuss how Russia’s war in Ukraine and migration pressures are feeding right-wing politics across Europe. The focus is Central and Eastern…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Peter Isackson and Mikael Pir-Budagyan explore how Europe’s politics are shifting as the Czech Republic and other Visegrád states absorb the pressures of migration and the Ukraine war. The continent wrestles with sovereignty, identity and a more transactional United States. Nuclear stability is eroding, increasing global danger as diplomacy fades.” post-date=”Nov 30, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: The Future of Europe: How War and Migration Are Fueling Right-Wing Politics” slug-data=”fo-talks-the-future-of-europe-how-war-and-migration-are-fueling-right-wing-politics”>

Nijhoom Majumder” post_date=”November 29, 2025 09:52″ pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/politics/fo-talks-sheikh-hasina-sentenced-to-death-inside-bangladeshs-most-explosive-political-crisis/” pid=”159379″ post-content=”

Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Awami League activist Nijhoom Majumder about Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) sentencing former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to death by hanging. Majumder argues the verdict is legally void and politically motivated. Khattar Singh presses him on the legitimacy of the interim government led by Bangladeshi Chief Advisor Muhammad Yunus, and on his sharply different account of the August 2024 protests that forced Hasina to flee to India.

Death sentence, tribunal legality and trial fairness

Hasina has been sentenced to death by hanging on three counts of crimes against humanity tied to the unrest in 2024. Majumder says the tribunal itself lacks jurisdiction and credibility. He labels the ICT a “kangaroo tribunal,” insisting it has been repurposed for political retribution. In his telling, Bangladesh created the International Crimes Tribunal Act of 1973 in the shadow of the 1971 liberation war to prosecute atrocities committed during that conflict. The law carries an implicit historical scope and cannot be stretched to try a contemporary leader for events five decades later.

Even if the court were competent, Majumder claims the process violated the core norms of due process. He says Hasina was denied “equality of arms.” She could not appoint counsel of her choosing, present evidence freely or challenge prosecution witnesses. She was instead assigned a state lawyer whom he deems ineffective. For Majumder, a death sentence delivered under those conditions cannot be called justice.

Khattar Singh frames the issue for a global audience: Whatever one thinks of Hasina’s record, executing a former prime minister after a trial widely perceived as one-sided risks shredding the rule of law.

Yunus’s rise and the August 2024 protests

Khattar Singh notes that international coverage portrayed Hasina’s ouster as a mass democratic uprising that brought Yunus to power on popular demand. Majumder disputes both the democratic framing and the constitutional basis of the new government. He argues Bangladesh’s constitution provides no pathway for an interim administration. According to him, the Yunus cabinet claimed legitimacy from an advisory opinion by the Supreme Court under Article 106. Yet when lawyers sought the underlying documents, none were produced.

Hasina publicly stated she never resigned. In Majumder’s view, there was neither a resignation nor a valid constitutional mechanism to replace her. If the government’s birth is illegal, he says, all actions flowing from it — including the tribunal — are tainted.

Majumder then walks through the 2024 unrest, tracing the spark to renewed student protests over public-sector job quotas. After Hasina abolished quotas in 2018 under pressure, a High Court verdict in June 2024 ruled that the abolition was unlawful, reigniting demonstrations to stop quotas returning. Majumder says the government appealed the ruling on the students’ behalf but insisted it could not override the judiciary. What followed, he expresses, was a violent, organized campaign: Allegedly, armed groups attacked police, freed prisoners, torched metro rail facilities and vandalized state buildings.

Khattar Singh pushes back with the widely reported claim that around 1,400 students were killed by state violence. Majumder rejects this figure, arguing that casualty numbers shifted repeatedly and that no consistent official list supports the higher tolls. He maintains that protesters initiated lethal violence while police primarily used crowd-control measures.

The Awami League’s future, public mood and extradition

Khattar Singh asks whether the sentence marks the end of Hasina and the now-banned Awami League political party. Majumder says the party has outlived earlier bans and upheavals and is now gaining symbolic strength. Public sentiment began shifting within weeks of Hasina’s fall, with many Bangladeshis privately concluding that, whatever her flaws, the Awami League provided stability and development.

The absence of massive street rallies, he argues, stems from fear and repression. Large-scale arrests of activists, jailed members of parliament, threats and attacks on supporters’ homes make open protest perilous. He points to a recent nationwide shutdown called by the party as evidence of quieter resistance.

On Hasina’s exile, Khattar Singh asks whether India will extradite her after Interpol outreach and a formal request by the Bangladeshi capital of Dhaka. Majumder believes India will refuse. He argues that the case is political, the tribunal illegitimate and the trial unfair — conditions that allow India to deny extradition under the 2013 India–Bangladesh treaty’s political offense and fair trial clauses. In his view, India will wait for an elected, broadly legitimate government in Dhaka before considering any such demand.

Civil war warning

Majumder also suggests Hasina’s ouster was aided by foreign-linked “deep state” forces and that international media and UN reporting amplified that agenda. He predicts that Bangladesh is heading toward “a deadly civil war.” He argues that repression, the narrowing of peaceful political space and the targeting of liberation-war memory will eventually provoke a violent backlash.

Khattar Singh closes by stressing that with Hasina’s sentencing, uncertainty looms large over Bangladesh.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

” post-content-short=” Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Awami League activist Nijhoom Majumder about Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) sentencing former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to death by hanging. Majumder argues the verdict is legally void and…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Nijhoom Majumder examine the death sentence handed to former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and the country’s political crisis. Majumder argues that the International Crimes Tribunal acted illegally and the interim government lacks constitutional legitimacy. He predicts rising public anger that could lead Bangladesh toward a violent civil war.” post-date=”Nov 29, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Sheikh Hasina Sentenced to Death: Inside Bangladesh’s Most Explosive Political Crisis” slug-data=”fo-talks-sheikh-hasina-sentenced-to-death-inside-bangladeshs-most-explosive-political-crisis”>

Chloe Sparwath” post_date=”November 28, 2025 06:52″ pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/middle-east-news/fo-talks-how-is-social-media-shaping-public-perception-of-the-israel-hamas-war/” pid=”159342″ post-content=”

Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh and Young Voices contributor Chloe Sparwath discuss how competing narratives have shaped global understanding of the war in Gaza. They explore how language, media framing and algorithm-driven platforms have created a parallel battlefield alongside the military one. Sparwath argues that while the fighting on the ground may have paused, the struggle over public perception is intensifying.

The narrative war in Gaza

Sparwath begins by describing the information sphere as an “eighth front,” where terminology becomes a strategic weapon. She argues that many global outlets have blurred moral distinctions by using language that equates Hamas with Israel. Terms like “hostage swap” or “prisoner exchange,” she says, imply symmetry between civilians abducted on October 7, 2023, and Palestinians imprisoned for violent offenses. As Sparwath puts it, media outlets are “twisting language to blur the moral line between Hamas terrorists and Israeli victims.”

She further claims that this linguistic framing makes it appear as though Israel and Hamas are simply two rival governments engaged in a territorial fight. According to her, adversarial governments, including Iran, Russia and China, have a vested interest in amplifying such narratives. These dynamics, she argues, have contributed to a broader environment in which emotional framing often overrides factual clarity.

Influencing public opinion of Hamas

Khattar Singh provides context from the beginning of the conflict: Sunni Palestinian nationalist group Hamas killed over 1,200 civilians and took 250–300 hostages during its attacks on Gaza on October 7, 2023. Sparwath notes that, at first, global media clearly labeled Hamas a terrorist organization, especially as news outlets replayed the group’s own footage of the atrocities. Yet she argues this clarity faded once Israel launched its counteroffensive in Gaza.

The result, she claims, has been a “false David and Goliath dichotomy,” with Israel portrayed as an overwhelmingly powerful aggressor and Hamas depicted as a resistance movement. Sparwath stresses that Palestinian civilians are not synonymous with Hamas, but believes the framing nonetheless tilts public sympathy toward the group.

Khattar Singh pushes back, observing that Israel’s response has caused thousands of civilian deaths. Israeli institutions themselves acknowledge a severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza. He suggests that some Western media portray Israel as the aggressor because of the severe, visible human costs.

Sparwath acknowledges the suffering of civilians but insists that responsibility ultimately lies with Hamas. She argues that the group has diverted billions in aid toward military infrastructure, destroyed or repurposed civilian facilities and embedded military assets inside population centers. She distinguishes intent as the key difference between the parties, asserting that “you don’t balance journalism by equating hostages with terrorists.”

Is Israel’s violence justified?

The conversation then turns to proportionality and moral accountability. Sparwath does not deny that Israeli strikes have inflicted widespread destruction, nor that Israeli forces include individuals capable of wrongdoing. But she maintains that Israel’s objective is the elimination of Hamas, not the targeting of civilians. She references Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza years earlier and claims that Hamas squandered the chance to build functioning infrastructure, choosing instead to prepare for war.

Khattar Singh notes that the media often conflates Hamas with Palestinians more broadly, pointing to incidents during the ceasefire in which Hamas executed internal rivals. Sparwath argues that global reporting frequently downplays this reality, creating an incomplete picture of life under Hamas rule.

The role of media in war

Both speakers agree that modern conflict is inseparable from media representation. Sparwath argues that many consumers rely on brief, emotionally charged clips without the historical or geopolitical context needed to interpret them. This vacuum allows influencers, foreign governments and partisan outlets to project simplified narratives onto complex events.

She warns that selective reporting is often more dangerous than false reporting. In her words, the most severe distortion occurs when media outlets choose “intentional not reporting or intentional over-reporting,” creating different realities for different audiences.

Khattar Singh, drawing from his own experience in major newsrooms, agrees that context is frequently omitted because it dampens dramatic storytelling. The economic pressures of digital media, he notes, reward sensationalism over nuance.

The war on social media

The conversation concludes with a reflection on algorithms and ideological fragmentation. Sparwath worries that platforms now reinforce users’ preexisting views, generating isolated information bubbles in which Israelis and Palestinians are seen only through a binary moral lens. “Everybody’s pushing a different narrative,” she says, and once an individual settles into one, “it’s all they see.”

Both Khattar Singh and Sparwath express concern that online polarization will harden political and social divides in the real world. The only antidote, they argue, is active effort: stepping outside algorithmic comfort zones, engaging with diverse sources and speaking directly with others. Only then can the public begin to reclaim the narrative space from the forces shaping it.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

” post-content-short=” Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh and Young Voices contributor Chloe Sparwath discuss how competing narratives have shaped global understanding of the war in Gaza. They explore how language, media framing and algorithm-driven platforms have created a parallel battlefield…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Chloe Sparwath examine how language, media framing and algorithms shape global opinion on the Gaza war. They explore how terms like “hostage swap” distort moral clarity and how selective reporting polarizes viewers. Both warn that algorithmic bubbles are deepening ideological divides online and offline.” post-date=”Nov 28, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: How Is Social Media Shaping Public Perception of the Israel–Hamas War?” slug-data=”fo-talks-how-is-social-media-shaping-public-perception-of-the-israel-hamas-war”>

Sebastian Schäffer” post_date=”November 27, 2025 06:50″ pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/video/fo-talks-ukraines-rafale-and-gripen-deals-overshadowed-by-major-corruption-scandal/” pid=”159326″ post-content=”

Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Sebastian Schäffer, Director of the Institute for the Danube Region and Central Europe, about Ukraine’s ambitious aircraft plans and the political turbulence unfolding in its capital of Kyiv. Their discussion explores two major stories moving in parallel: Ukraine’s letters of intent for hundreds of advanced European fighter jets, and a corruption scandal touching senior figures close to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Together, these developments illuminate the challenges and contradictions of Ukraine’s wartime decision-making and what they mean for Europe’s security future.

Ukraine’s Rafale deal

Khattar Singh opens the conversation with Ukraine’s headline-grabbing announcement: a letter of intent (LOI) to acquire 100 Dassault Rafale fighter jets from France. Schäffer clarifies the nature of the agreement, noting that “it’s an LOI, it’s a letter of intent…there is an intention of purchasing 100 Rafale jets,” but no firm contract yet. Even so, he argues that political symbolism matters. Three years into Russia’s full-scale invasion, Ukraine is signaling a shift from emergency survival to long-term force planning.

The French jets represent a generational transition away from the Soviet-designed aircraft Ukraine relied on for decades. They also situate Ukraine squarely within Western defense networks. While Schäffer acknowledges that he is not an expert on military details, he underscores that Rafales are heavier, multi-role strike aircraft — very different from the Soviet platforms Ukraine is retiring.

Even in draft form, the LOI sets the stage for a decade-long strategic realignment. It also hints at deeper European integration, a theme Schäffer considers essential for the continent’s future security posture.

Why is Ukraine buying jets now?

If these aircraft will only arrive years from now, Khattar Singh asks, why undertake such commitments in the middle of a war? Schäffer argues that Ukraine is preparing for the day a ceasefire silences the gunfire.

Any such agreement may involve territorial concessions, which in turn makes military deterrence even more crucial. Ukraine’s air force has been severely depleted since February 2022, and rebuilding it will take time. Pilot training cycles alone stretch far beyond the timelines of battlefield need, as the F-16 jet rollout already demonstrated.

Khattar Singh frames this moment as a turning point: Ukraine is no longer simply replacing losses but reinventing its air force. Whether the future brings Rafales, Saab JAS 39 Gripen jets or a mix of Western aircraft, Ukraine is signaling that it intends never again to be dependent on Russian military systems.

Who will pay for Ukraine’s jets?

Khattar Singh then raises the uncomfortable question: Ukraine cannot afford these jets, so who will?

Schäffer calls this the “billion-dollar question.” Ukraine is spending a massive share of its GDP simply to survive the war. France and Sweden, the potential suppliers, face their own fiscal constraints. Without external financing, these deals cannot materialize.

One solution under active debate is the use of frozen Russian assets held in Europe. This discussion resurfaces repeatedly, though no consensus has yet emerged. Alternatively, the European Union could pursue a joint financing framework — an approach Schäffer believes would strengthen European defense cooperation more broadly.

For now, the LOIs remain political signals: France and Sweden betting on Ukraine’s future resilience, and Ukraine placing long-term trust in European security structures. But without a viable funding mechanism, the plans cannot advance from intention to procurement.

Corruption in Ukraine

The conversation closes with arguably the most politically explosive development: a major corruption scandal inside Ukraine’s government. The case reportedly involves tens of millions of dollars and senior officials in strategically vital ministries. Schäffer describes it bluntly: “This is not a minor scandal. This is a major corruption case… in a strategically… vital sector.”

The scandal’s timing causes extreme damage. As Ukraine seeks billions in military support, corruption revelations offer ammunition to skeptics in Europe and the United States. They also feed Kremlin narratives portraying Ukraine as illegitimate or chaotic.

Yet Schäffer insists the scandal contains an overlooked positive: Ukraine’s anti-corruption bodies uncovered it despite wartime censorship, martial law and intense pressure. This demonstrates that the country’s democratic oversight institutions still function. In his view, that fact matters more than the scandal’s political fallout.

However, populist leaders across Europe will likely weaponize the case to argue against continued aid. The longer the war lasts, the more potent such narratives may become. Ukraine’s choices today — signing ambitious aircraft LOIs, exposing internal wrongdoing and navigating financial uncertainty — will shape not only Ukraine’s security but Europe’s geopolitical landscape for years to come.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

” post-content-short=” Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Sebastian Schäffer, Director of the Institute for the Danube Region and Central Europe, about Ukraine’s ambitious aircraft plans and the political turbulence unfolding in its capital of Kyiv. Their discussion explores two major…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Sebastian Schäffer explore how Ukraine is reshaping its long-term security by committing to future Rafale and Gripen jet fleets. Kyiv is preparing for a post-war landscape defined by a fragile ceasefire, one in which financing remains unresolved. Schäffer also discusses a corruption scandal that threatens international confidence in Ukraine.” post-date=”Nov 27, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Ukraine’s Rafale and Gripen Deals Overshadowed by Major Corruption Scandal” slug-data=”fo-talks-ukraines-rafale-and-gripen-deals-overshadowed-by-major-corruption-scandal”>

Maurizio Geri” post_date=”November 25, 2025 07:34″ pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/region/central_south_asia/fo-talks-russia-and-chinas-hybrid-warfare-explained-what-are-nato-and-the-eus-options/” pid=”159297″ post-content=”

Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh and Maurizio Geri, an EU Marie Curie global fellow and lieutenant reservist in the Italian Navy, discuss how Russia and China use hybrid warfare to pressure NATO and the European Union. Geri delivers a stark message: The West is already immersed in a permanent gray-zone struggle where politics, economics, technology and conflict merge into one continuum.

What is hybrid warfare?

Geri explains that hybrid warfare is ancient in logic — ancient Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu wrote about defeating an enemy without fighting — but unprecedented in reach because modern societies are hyper-connected, digitized and vulnerable at countless points. It is a low-intensity, sub-threshold conflict that can spike or ebb yet never stops. “The battlefield practically is everywhere… in society, in politics, in the economy,” Geri says.

He organizes state tools through the “Diamond Field” acronym, spelled “DIMEFIL:” Diplomacy, Information, Military, Economic, Finance, Intelligence and Lawfare. Diplomacy now includes intimidation and the use of diplomats for covert operations. Information warfare ranges from disinformation and bots to synthetic media and election interference. Military tools are mostly non-kinetic: GPS jamming, drone incursions, airspace violations and maritime sabotage. Economic and financial tools weaponize energy, sanctions, markets and strategic dependencies. Intelligence and lawfare cover espionage, influence networks, IP theft and legal gray areas exploited to pressure diaspora communities.

Russia and China vs NATO

Geri argues that Moscow and Beijing increasingly synchronize their efforts. They echo each other’s narratives, coordinate influence campaigns and run joint air patrols near Japan and South Korea. Iran and North Korea reinforce their cooperation with drones, cyber capabilities and manpower. Thus, they form an expanding axis of upheaval. This alignment is transactional rather than ideological but still effective, as it aims to fracture Western unity and overwhelm democratic decision-making.

Russia increasing hybrid attacks

The Ukraine war accelerates Russia’s hybrid strategy. Geri cites assessments showing attacks quadrupling from 2022 to 2023 and tripling again from 2023 to 2024. Russia targets transportation networks, government institutions, critical infrastructure and defense industries, often probing for weak spots rather than seeking decisive impact.

Energy remains Russia’s sharpest lever. Moscow manipulates gas flows, pressures economies in the European Union, sabotages pipelines and underwater cables and uses its “shadow fleet” to skirt sanctions. Cyber and physical disruptions, from railway failures to airport blockages, create political fragmentation rather than battlefield gain.

China’s hybrid tactics

China employs similar instruments but anchors its strategy in long-term economic leverage. Beijing is linked to undersea cable damage in the Baltic Sea while maintaining deniability. As Geri notes, hybrid warfare’s problem is the possibility of one side denying an attack, as it is difficult to detect and attribute responsibility to any given party.

China’s control of critical minerals, rare earths and clean-tech supply chains gives it extraordinary coercive power. Export threats instantly affect Western industries that depend on Chinese batteries, turbines, solar panels and semiconductors. Beijing also extends influence through Belt and Road Initiative projects, local partnerships, surveillance of diaspora communities and coordinated messaging that often complements Kremlin narratives.

NATO’s counter

Since 2016, NATO has treated hybrid attacks as potential Article 5 triggers. It now reinforces that with concrete actions. Baltic Sentry patrols underwater infrastructure, while Eastern Sentry strengthens air defenses and drone detection along the eastern flank. Allies pledge to move toward 5% of GDP on defense, with 1.5% dedicated to hybrid resilience and technology. NATO also expands intelligence-sharing, cybersecurity cooperation and joint defense production to reduce fragmentation among member states.

The EU adds its own toolkit: Defense Readiness 2030 to strengthen Europe’s defense capacity, new fiscal flexibility for defense budgets, RepowerEU to end Russian energy imports by 2027 and the Critical Raw Materials Act to reduce reliance on China. Yet democracies face inherent constraints, specifically transparency, accountability and law, which shape how they can respond to covert or deniable attacks.

An endless war?

Khattar Singh raises the “mirror image” claim that Russia and China see NATO encirclement and therefore act defensively. Geri disagrees, arguing that Western engagement and economic integration only fueled authoritarian militarization rather than moderation. From a realist perspective, he says, imperial regimes expand because the international system is anarchic — “There is no world government, so the big fish eat the small fish.” Democracies cluster in alliances; authoritarian states project power outward. The result is a durable, structural rivalry rather than a misunderstanding.

What’s next for hybrid warfare?

Geri sees energy and technology as the core drivers of the next era. Artificial intelligence systems, autonomous platforms, quantum computing and space assets will open new arenas for gray-zone activity. Still, he believes democratic strengths of innovation, open debate, civic participation and critical thinking remain powerful advantages. Hybrid warfare will grow more constant and more personalized, but societal resilience can rise with it.

The conflict may be endless, he suggests, but so is the democratic capacity to adapt.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

” post-content-short=” Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh and Maurizio Geri, an EU Marie Curie global fellow and lieutenant reservist in the Italian Navy, discuss how Russia and China use hybrid warfare to pressure NATO and the European Union. Geri delivers a stark message: The West is already immersed…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Maurizio Geri examine how Russia and China use hybrid warfare to pressure NATO and the European Union. They discuss NATO/EU defense strategies, including Defense Readiness 2030, a new framework to strengthen military capacity and hybrid-warfare resilience. It reflects Europe’s shift toward strategic competition and coordinated security planning.” post-date=”Nov 25, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Russia and China’s Hybrid Warfare Explained | What Are NATO and the EU’s Options?” slug-data=”fo-talks-russia-and-chinas-hybrid-warfare-explained-what-are-nato-and-the-eus-options”>

Petra Vrablicová” post_date=”November 24, 2025 06:17″ pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/region/europe/fo-talks-andrej-babis-and-europes-political-divide-populism-corruption-and-the-war-in-ukraine/” pid=”159271″ post-content=”

Chief Strategy Officer Peter Isackson and Slovakian journalist Petra Vrablicová discuss Andrej Babiš’s election victory in the Czech Republic and what it reveals about the political currents reshaping Central Europe. Their conversation explores Babiš’s ideological evolution, his controversial political record and how shifting public sentiment on Ukraine, migration and the European Union is remaking regional alliances.

As corruption scandals proliferate and democratic trust erodes, Vrablicová argues that voters are increasingly vulnerable to “relativization of information,” a trend that now defines politics across the region.

Who is Andrej Babiš?

Isackson opens by asking why Babiš, who failed to form a government in 2020, is now returning to power four years after his term as prime minister. Vrablicová explains that the October 2025 parliamentary election unfolded amid inflation, energy anxiety and dissatisfaction with the outgoing coalition. Babiš’s party, ANO, capitalized on the rising distrust of traditional institutions and the broader European swing toward nationalist and anti-Brussels narratives.

He now seeks to form a coalition with two far-right parties, Freedom and Direct Democracy (or Svoboda a přímá demokracie, SPD) and Motorists, whose demands are already shaping the policy horizon. Although Babiš insisted during the campaign that he would never back a referendum on leaving the EU or NATO, both partners strongly support holding one. His challenge will be to find a way of governing while balancing these incompatible positions.

Babiš’s ideology

ANO is less a right-wing party than a populist vehicle built around Babiš’s personal brand. Vrablicová describes it as more centrist, “not so much far-right,” though it shifts rightward when politically expedient. This elasticity mirrors the strategies of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico. During the campaign, Babiš borrowed heavily from their playbook, emphasizing cultural grievance, sovereignty and opposition to EU influence.

The resulting coalition negotiations reflect this ideological ambiguity. Babiš continues to support the Czech Republic’s initiative to supply Ukraine with ammunition, but SPD and Motorists oppose it. He rejects a Czech exit from Western institutions, while his partners treat such a referendum as a core demand. Isackson highlights how this tension foreshadows a fragile and potentially unstable government.

War in Ukraine

The war in Ukraine has transformed political attitudes across Central Europe. Early unity — the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia aligning against Russian aggression — fractured as energy prices rose and refugee inflows strained domestic resources. Populist leaders have been highly effective at weaponizing public frustration.

A clear divide has emerged: The Czech Republic and Poland remain pro-Ukrainian, while Slovakia and Hungary lean more toward Russia. Polling in the latter two countries shows notable public sympathy for a Russian victory. Hungarian Chief of Office Antal Rogán has even floated a regional coalition — Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic under Babiš — to form an explicitly anti-Ukrainian bloc.

Yet contradictions persist. Slovakia’s government claims to provide only humanitarian aid, even as private Slovak arms exports to Ukraine have doubled. Vrablicová stresses that public rhetoric and actual practice diverge sharply, making policymaking harder to read.

Migration crisis in Europe

Migration remains a major mobilizing force for Central Europe’s right-wing parties. The backlash long predates the Ukrainian refugee wave and is rooted in earlier Middle Eastern migration cycles. But the initial welcome given to Ukrainians faded as the war dragged on, integration faltered and economic pressure intensified.

In the Czech Republic’s campaign, anti-immigration narratives were amplified by Babiš’s coalition partners. SPD leader Tomio Okamura is under investigation for a racist campaign billboard depicting a black doctor holding a knife, surrounded by blood. Vrablicová cites this episode as emblematic of the political climate. These themes helped far-right parties frame themselves as defenders of national identity against both migrants and Belgium.

Politicians with criminal cases

Corruption scandals permeate the emerging coalition. Babiš faces charges related to €2 million ($2.3 million) in EU subsidy fraud tied to the Stork’s Nest project, which offers prenatal education and free baby items to pregnant women. Okamura faces investigation for inciting racial hatred. To Isackson, the normalization of leaders campaigning under active criminal proceedings signals a deeper crisis of democratic trust.

Vrablicová believes the issue goes beyond politicians themselves. It reflects voters’ willingness to dismiss established facts in an era of disinformation and polarization. “[The] electorate actually know what they are voting for,” she says, arguing that democratic erosion is increasingly driven from below as much as above.

Is Central Europe divided?

The Visegrad Group (V4) — the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Hungary — has become fractured in recent years, but Babiš’s return may revive it. Instead of a two-two split, the new dynamic could become three–one, with the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia aligned against Poland. Early signs point in this direction: Fico has vowed that the V4 will block the EU’s ETS2 climate-policy framework, and Hungary has declared its intention to build an anti-Ukrainian bloc.

Belgium watches closely. While Vrablicová does not cite official reactions, she notes that the EU has learned from Hungary and now responds more quickly and forcefully with infringement procedures and financial pressure. The coming months will show whether the Czech Republic’s shift heralds a broader regional realignment — or whether populist coalitions crack under the weight of governing.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

” post-content-short=” Chief Strategy Officer Peter Isackson and Slovakian journalist Petra Vrablicová discuss Andrej Babiš’s election victory in the Czech Republic and what it reveals about the political currents reshaping Central Europe. Their conversation explores Babiš’s ideological evolution, his…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Peter Isackson and Petra Vrablicová examine Andrej Babiš’s return to power in the Czech Republic and what it reveals about rising populism in Central Europe. His coalition’s divisions over Ukraine, migration and Western alliances highlight a widening regional split. The resulting realignment will test the European Union’s capacity to respond to internal resistance.” post-date=”Nov 24, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Andrej Babiš and Europe’s Political Divide: Populism, Corruption and the War in Ukraine” slug-data=”fo-talks-andrej-babis-and-europes-political-divide-populism-corruption-and-the-war-in-ukraine”>

Fernando Carvajal” post_date=”November 23, 2025 05:57″ pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/video/fo-talks-sudans-civil-war-explained-rsf-vs-saf-darfur-crisis-and-red-sea-geopolitics/” pid=”159260″ post-content=”

Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh and Fernando Carvajal, the executive director of the American Center for South Yemen Studies, discuss Sudan’s devastating civil war. Their conversation moves from the origins of the SAF–RSF rupture to the broader structure of Sudanese society, showing why this war cannot be reduced to two men fighting over a palace. Carvajal portrays a country where rival militaries, ideological networks and regional patrons overlap, producing a conflict that is both local in texture and international in consequence.

The war in Sudan

Khattar Singh opens by asking how the war began. Carvajal links it to Sudan’s unresolved political rupture. The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), commanded by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (better known as Hemedti), once coexisted uneasily within the post-coup transitional council. Their rivalry is rooted in the era of former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir and intensified after the 2021 military coup crushed hopes for a democratic transition. From the perspective of Sudanese civil society, Carvajal says the coup “was really a betrayal of the December revolution” from 2018, when protestors demanded economic reform and Bashir’s resignation from office.

When the SAF and RSF fell out in April 2023, the struggle for power escalated into a destructive nationwide war. The prospect of a civilian-led transition receded further into the distance.

Who controls Sudan?

Carvajal stresses that Sudan’s battlefield is far more fragmented than the media portrays. Sudan is tribal, sectarian and sharply regional, with politics shaped by the east, south, center, Nile corridor and Darfur region. Tribal militias, Islamist brigades and local factions have taken sides or broken away entirely, often shifting loyalties based on survival rather than doctrine.

On the SAF side, hardline Islamist groups have reemerged as decisive actors. Many Sudanese analysts, Carvajal notes, “really credit the Islamist factions … as really being behind … the transitional council.” The RSF, meanwhile, has expanded across western Sudan, exploiting local grievances and the collapse of state authority. Both forces claim legitimacy, yet neither governs effectively or credibly.

The Darfur crisis

The western Darfur region now hosts the war’s most extreme violence. The RSF has seized major towns while the SAF leans heavily on Islamist militias and courted tribal defectors to expand its manpower. Sudan has become the world’s largest internal displacement crisis: more than 12 million people uprooted and nearly half the population needing aid. After two years of conflict, Carvajal says Sudan “unfortunately takes on that title,” surpassing Yemen as the worst humanitarian disaster.

Aid delivery has nearly collapsed. UN convoys have been struck, officials expelled and access blocked. Confusion over attacks, with SAF supporters alleging the convoys carried weapons and UN agencies insisting they carried food, has paralyzed relief operations. If the RSF continues consolidating the region, it will be forced to prove it can secure roads and airports, not merely win battles.

Role of the UAE and Egypt

Multiple foreign powers have deepened the conflict. Egypt has aligned with the SAF, supplying equipment and flights and, according to some reports, intelligence or drone support. The Egyptian capital of Cairo fears spillover violence and illicit weapons flows.

Saudi Arabia is alarmed by potential Houthi expansion along the Red Sea and is pressing Washington to accelerate a ceasefire before a vacuum enables Iran-linked forces to establish new coastal footholds. The United Arab Emirates backs the RSF, driven by economic interests in Africa and a desire to curb Islamist influence. Turkey and Qatar, though outside the Quartet, seek roles as alternative mediators, partly because Burhan believes they would reduce RSF legitimacy. Meanwhile, the United States struggles to lead a coherent peace process amid competing regional agendas.

The collapse of Sudan

Khattar Singh asks whether Sudan has collapsed. Carvajal tells the grim truth that the state can no longer deliver basic services, pay salaries or protect civilians. The Sudanese capital of Khartoum, Darfur and Port Sudan now function as rival zones; famine conditions are spreading; hospitals have failed; UN access is blocked and donor support has been terrible.

Washington has even hinted at coercive measures, possibly peacekeepers, to secure humanitarian corridors if the parties fail to protect aid deliveries. Carvajal doubts the United Nations can mount such an effort without far greater funding.

Will Sudan break apart?

Despite fears of further fragmentation after South Sudan’s 2011 secession, Carvajal believes none of the major actors — SAF, RSF or Islamist factions — want Sudan to split. The country’s neighbors and Western governments also support unity, wary of a domino effect across already fragile borderlands. The Quad’s roadmap centers on reestablishing a civilian-led government in Khartoum and restarting constitutional reform, though the war’s trajectory makes stabilization difficult.

Still, if a credible peace initiative emerges — one not controlled by either warring faction — Sudan may yet avoid permanent fracture.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

” post-content-short=” Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh and Fernando Carvajal, the executive director of the American Center for South Yemen Studies, discuss Sudan’s devastating civil war. Their conversation moves from the origins of the SAF–RSF rupture to the broader structure of Sudanese…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Fernando Carvajal examine how Sudan’s civil war grew into a multilayered conflict, tearing the country apart. They explore the collapse of state institutions, the humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur and the involvement of neighboring countries. Without a credible peace process and secure aid corridors, Sudan risks fragmentation and regional destabilization.” post-date=”Nov 23, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Sudan’s Civil War Explained: RSF vs SAF, Darfur Crisis and Red Sea Geopolitics” slug-data=”fo-talks-sudans-civil-war-explained-rsf-vs-saf-darfur-crisis-and-red-sea-geopolitics”>

Rob Avis” post_date=”November 22, 2025 05:14″ pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/more/environment/fo-talks-regenerative-design-and-how-to-keep-your-garden-slug-free/” pid=”159238″ post-content=”

Fair Observer’s Communications and Outreach officer, Roberta Campani, speaks with Rob Avis, Chief Engineering Officer at 5th World, about how simple, low-tech choices in a home garden reveal larger truths about ecological design. What begins as a practical conversation about slugs becomes a broader argument for shifting our mindset away from short-term fixes and toward regeneration. This philosophy restores rather than merely sustains natural systems.

Avis frames the discussion through an accessible lens: In a small backyard garden, every design choice carries ecological meaning. Slugs, aphids and nutrient-poor soil aren’t isolated annoyances. They are signals of missing relationships, missing predators and missing system elements. Understanding those relationships, he argues, is the heart of regeneration.

Rethinking knowledge and starting small

Campani asks why so many new gardeners feel overwhelmed. In response, Avis reflects on how knowledge transfer has changed in modern times. Instead of relying on intergenerational guidance, people now turn to YouTube, books or artificial intelligence tools — and while the volume of information can be dizzying, he notes that “a lot of it’s pretty good.”

However, the real challenge isn’t information, but rather scale. Too many beginners, especially men, leap into projects that are too big for them. Avis urges a different approach: Start with four square feet, a model drawn from American gardener Mel Bartholomew’s classic guide, Square Foot Gardening. Small successes build confidence. And when problems appear, you can look them up, adjust and try again. Regeneration, even at the level of a backyard, begins with humility and the willingness to experiment.

This philosophy extends beyond gardening advice. Avis sees it as a universal principle: systems thrive when we begin with manageable interventions and let learning compound over time. This small, resilient experiment becomes a foundation for larger regenerative practices.

Three natural fixes for slugs

From here, Campani steers the conversation in a practical direction: What can gardeners do about slugs? Avis offers three solutions, two available everywhere and one rooted firmly in permaculture:

1. Diatomaceous earth (DE)

DE is composed of fossilized diatoms — “basically microscopic seashells” — that sequestered carbon as they settled on ocean floors. When sprinkled around plants, the tiny particles give slugs tiny cuts as they crawl, causing them to dry out. It’s an organic method that adds no chemicals to the garden.

2. Beer traps

A bowl of beer attracts slugs, which then fall in and drown. It’s inexpensive, simple and effective, especially for urban gardeners.

3. Ducks

Avis’s preferred method, and the most ecological, involves integrating livestock. Ducks, he explains, devour slugs without touching vegetables because they’re seeking a high-protein snack. This leads to one of permaculture’s most beloved axioms: “You don’t have a slug problem, you have a duck deficiency.” For Avis, this isn’t just a joke; it’s design logic. When the right organism is present, the problem dissolves into the system itself.

Predators, missing elements and the regenerative mindset

This highlights a broader ecological principle: When pests appear, something in the system is absent. Regenerative design means identifying that missing element, usually a predator. A good ecologist asks: What predator will feed on this prey?

Avis illustrates the point with aphids. Many gardeners reach for pesticides, but this kills the aphids and harms the ladybugs that naturally feed on them. Instead of fighting nature, gardeners should create conditions where ladybugs thrive — habitat, shelter and food — and allow the ecological relationship to rebalance the system.

This principle scales upward. Whether in a backyard or a landscape, solutions emerge not from adding external inputs but from restoring ecological relationships that should already exist.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

” post-content-short=” Fair Observer’s Communications and Outreach officer, Roberta Campani, speaks with Rob Avis, Chief Engineering Officer at 5th World, about how simple, low-tech choices in a home garden reveal larger truths about ecological design. What begins as a practical conversation about slugs becomes a…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Roberta Campani and Rob Avis explore how little choices in a backyard garden can model the principles of regenerative design. Avis explains how starting small, observing system relationships and relying on natural predators, namely ducks, transforms simple pest problems into learning opportunities. Regeneration begins with restoring missing ecological connections.” post-date=”Nov 22, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Regenerative Design and How To Keep Your Garden Slug-Free” slug-data=”fo-talks-regenerative-design-and-how-to-keep-your-garden-slug-free”>

Rob Avis” post_date=”November 21, 2025 07:11″ pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/more/environment/fo-talks-heres-why-more-americans-need-to-grow-their-own-food/” pid=”159235″ post-content=”

Fair Observer’s Communications and Outreach officer, Roberta Campani, speaks with Rob Avis, Chief Engineering Officer at 5th World, about why the United States’ 40 million acres of front lawns may be the country’s most overlooked resource. What begins as a reflection on wasted land and misplaced effort unfolds into a broader argument: Regeneration is possible, practical and far closer than people think. Avis insists the barrier isn’t technology or land scarcity, but rather culture — the stories people tell themselves about what landscapes should look like.

The scale problem we refuse to see

Campani opens by asking why the front lawn, an ordinary feature of American life, plays such an outsized role in environmental decline. Avis replies that the misallocation is so absurd that “some days I feel like we’re in a Shakespearean comedy,” because the data are widely known and yet culturally invisible.

The US maintains nearly 40 million acres of front lawn, roughly the same land base used to grow wheat. That comparison, he explains, makes the underlying opportunity impossible to ignore. When one of his students questioned whether cities could meaningfully contribute to food production, Avis ran a quick calculation. If every one of those acres grew nothing but wheat, the country would produce enough calories to feed the entire populace “a 2,000-calorie diet per day for two years.” No one advocates monocropping lawns, but the land base is already there.

Campani presses on the resource side of the problem. Beyond unused acreage, Americans expend staggering amounts of energy and money to maintain lawns that produce nothing. Avis notes that the gasoline used annually on this turf could drive a Hummer electric vehicle around the Earth 21,000 times. Lawn care also absorbs far more nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, herbicides and pesticides than most commercial farms, largely because homeowners do not face the same economic constraints. This creates a system that consumes resources without delivering real value. As Avis puts it bluntly, maintaining the lawn “enslaves us.”

Paradigm is the real barrier

The conversation shifts from data to mindset. For Avis, the decisive obstacle to regeneration is cultural sentiment: the paradigms people operate within, the stories they inherit and repeat. Americans tend to treat lawns as symbols of order, beauty or status, even when those norms undermine ecological health.

Change the paradigm and food systems could be rebuilt from the ground up. Urban and peri-urban spaces could grow fruits and vegetables, while larger commercial farms shift back toward perennial systems far better suited to the continent’s ecology. This shift would not merely reduce harm; it would actively restore ecological function.

Avis points to a striking example drawn from ecological history and research. Before European settlement, the vast region stretching from North Dakota south to the Gulf of Mexico and east to the Mississippi River was grassland. If the corn, soy and wheat currently grown there were converted back into perennial grasses, the carbon storage effect alone could make the US carbon-neutral “overnight”. Such a transformation would also restore the Mississippi watershed and eliminate dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico.

The return of perennial grasslands would support healthier ruminants — cows and bison — in regions where they are ecologically appropriate. Avis acknowledges the political and moral debates around livestock but argues that the ecological system itself provides guidance.

Regeneration is simpler than we think

Campani closes by asking why, if the solutions are so obvious, society seems stuck. Avis responds that complexity at the global level masks the simplicity of the local fixes. People often assume that solving environmental problems requires advanced technology or sacrifice. It begins with recognizing overlooked assets, like the quiet sprawl of America’s lawns, and redesigning them in ways that work with, not against, natural systems.

The land exists, the solutions are there and the ecological benefits are measurable. What must change is the cultural lens. Once that shifts, regeneration becomes an achievable design choice.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

” post-content-short=” Fair Observer’s Communications and Outreach officer, Roberta Campani, speaks with Rob Avis, Chief Engineering Officer at 5th World, about why the United States’ 40 million acres of front lawns may be the country’s most overlooked resource. What begins as a reflection on wasted land and…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Roberta Campani and Rob Avis explore how America’s lawn space reflects a cultural barrier to ecological regeneration. Converting even a portion of this land into diverse food systems could transform urban nutrition and reduce environmental damage. Many regenerative solutions to seemingly complex global issues are surprisingly simple once cultural paradigms shift.” post-date=”Nov 21, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Here’s Why More Americans Need to Grow Their Own Food” slug-data=”fo-talks-heres-why-more-americans-need-to-grow-their-own-food”>

Saya Kiba” post_date=”November 20, 2025 07:29″ pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/region/asia_pacific/fo-talks-what-does-trumps-japan-visit-and-meeting-with-xi-jinping-mean-for-the-indo-pacific/” pid=”159204″ post-content=”

Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Saya Kiba, a professor at Kobe City University of Foreign Studies in Japan, about US President Donald Trump’s five-day tour of Japan, South Korea and Malaysia. The discussion examines how the newly inaugurated Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi handled Trump’s high-profile visit, how Beijing interpreted the optics and why the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) remains cautious as US–China rivalry sharpens.

Trump’s visit to Japan

Khattar Singh opens by asking whether Takaichi maximized the opportunities presented by Trump’s visit. Kiba notes that Japanese media gave the summit strong reviews, crediting Takaichi for her energy, visibility and political poise. Simultaneously, she stresses that the agreements Trump and Takaichi highlighted on rare earths, tariffs and defense were not new. They had been “prepared even before Takaichi was elected,” she explains, drafted by bureaucrats under the preceding administration of former Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba.

Even so, Kiba argues that the diplomatic choreography mattered. Takaichi had just completed back-to-back visits to Malaysia for ASEAN and to South Korea for Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation before hosting Trump in Tokyo. The sequence created an impression of momentum and international readiness despite her recent inauguration. However, it is too early to conclude what tangible outcomes Takaichi can deliver from this surge of activity.

Takaichi’s policies

Global media have quickly branded Takaichi as a right-wing, defense-forward leader. She has pledged to increase Japan’s defense budget, but Kiba questions whether such ambitions are fiscally realistic. Takaichi has simultaneously promised to preserve high-quality social welfare and explore tax reform. As Kiba wonders aloud, “What is the source of the budget for the defense budget?” Even former Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s pledge to expand defense spending came without a concrete financing plan.

Japan’s signaling, Kiba explains, targets two distinct audiences. To the United States, especially under “Trump 2.0,” Tokyo wants to show that it is meeting alliance expectations and carrying its security burden. To its Asian neighbors, the message is different: Japan’s growing military posture is not destabilizing but is instead tied to its commitment to a “free, open and rule-based international order.”

China’s stance

The optics of Takaichi’s warm rapport with Trump quickly went viral across East Asia. Yet Kiba highlights that she moved directly from hosting Trump in Yokosuka, Japan, to holding a bilateral meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea. Despite Takaichi’s reputation in China as a conservative and ally of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Kiba says she “toned down her very hard stance toward China,” and Beijing has already taken note.

Their summit was pragmatic. Takaichi voiced concerns over China’s rare-earth export controls, while both leaders agreed to strengthen communication between defense authorities and ensure effective crisis-management mechanisms. Japan’s approach is to deepen cooperation with the US while simultaneously using diplomacy to maintain predictability in relations with Beijing.

The Trump–Xi meeting

Japanese analysts watched the Trump–Xi meeting with particular concern. The moment Trump used the term “G2” — referring to the hypothetical Group of Two relationship between the US and China — Japanese media amplified it instantly. For Tokyo, the concept suggests two dominant blocs dividing the world into opposing spheres of influence. Japan, Kiba argues, rejects this binary framing. “We maintain autonomy in our own diplomacy,” she says. Japan does not want a world in which the US and China alone set the rules.

Japan and other Group of Seven partners support the liberal international order but are not aligned with Washington on every issue. A rigid US–China condominium would leave little room for middle powers to maneuver. Tokyo instead prefers a multipolar system with diverse, multinational actors — an environment more compatible with Japan’s strategic interests and its preference for consensus-driven diplomacy.

ASEAN is watching closely

While US allies such as Japan, Australia, South Korea and the Philippines welcomed the outcomes of Trump’s tour, ASEAN’s reaction has been noticeably subdued. Kiba says Southeast Asian governments are in “wait and see” mode. They are neither enthusiastic nor alarmed; rather, they are calibrating their positions amid a fast-shifting strategic landscape.

ASEAN states remain skeptical of US commitments, still critical of Washington’s handling of the Israel–Hamas conflict and wary of what Kiba describes as the erosion of “so-called democratization” under Trump’s return to power. At the same time, they recognize the practical benefits of continued US engagement, especially in defense and supply-chain resilience.

Looking ahead, Kiba believes Japan will widen its multilateral initiatives across the region, including in emerging areas such as energy transition, climate cooperation, supply-chain governance and intellectual-property protection. More “minilaterals” and tailored coalitions built around specific issues will define the next phase of Asian diplomacy.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

” post-content-short=” Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh speaks with Saya Kiba, a professor at Kobe City University of Foreign Studies in Japan, about US President Donald Trump’s five-day tour of Japan, South Korea and Malaysia. The discussion examines how the newly inaugurated Japanese Prime…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Saya Kiba examine US President Donald Trump’s visit to the Asia-Pacific and what it reveals about shifting power dynamics. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi now holds a difficult balancing act, strengthening the US alliance and easing tensions with China. ASEAN’s cautious posture is shaping the region’s evolving diplomatic landscape.” post-date=”Nov 20, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: What Does Trump’s Japan Visit and Meeting with Xi Jinping Mean for the Indo-Pacific?” slug-data=”fo-talks-what-does-trumps-japan-visit-and-meeting-with-xi-jinping-mean-for-the-indo-pacific”>

Rob Avis” post_date=”November 18, 2025 06:31″ pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/more/environment/fo-talks-want-to-save-the-planet-beavers-have-the-answers/” pid=”159168″ post-content=”

Fair Observer’s Communications and Outreach officer, Roberta Campani, speaks with Rob Avis, Chief Engineering Officer at 5th World, about how we must rethink humanity’s relationship with the environment. Avis lays out three paradigms for how societies view their impact on nature: the conventional system, the sustainable system and the regenerative system. The first is collapsing, the second is insufficient and only the third truly transforms how humans live on — and with — the planet.

To make the concept tangible, Avis turns to an unexpected teacher: the beaver, an animal whose actions look destructive but actually revitalize entire ecosystems. He offers a blueprint for how human systems can shift from extracting value to creating life.

The limits of conventional thinking and the illusion of sustainability

Avis defines regeneration by first explaining what it is not. The conventional paradigm, he argues, is “business as usual” — a system built on endless GDP growth, shareholder primacy and the externalization of ecological harm. This model is now visibly fraying, as soil and oceans have degraded, air quality is worsening, food nutrient density is collapsing and hormonal health is declining. “Everybody pretty much knows that at some point the party’s going to end,” he says. The costs are multiplying in ways that can no longer be ignored.

Yet the second paradigm, sustainability, fails to offer real transformation. It frames humans as inherently destructive, and the best we can do is tread lightly, shrink our footprint, or aspire to net zero. Avis is critical of the mindset behind zero-impact philosophies, which are “put forward as positive, but they’re actually negative” because they presume the ideal solution is human absence. That logic ends in misanthropy: If we are always a liability, the only true solution is to reduce ourselves to nothing.

Sustainability is, in his view, a linguistic trap. It invites small fixes and incremental improvements, but never asks how natural systems actually function, or how humanity might participate in those systems as a generative force. Avis insists that the next step requires fully rejecting the premise that humans must minimize harm. Instead, we must learn to maximize benefit. That means flipping the question from, “How do we do less damage?” to, “How do we create more life?”

The regenerative paradigm: learning from beavers

The regenerative paradigm begins with a radical premise: Humans are not separate from nature; we are nature. It is impossible to have no footprint. Every action produces a reaction. If the footprint cannot be erased, the real challenge becomes: How do we optimize it?

To illustrate, Avis turns to the beaver. On his own 160-acre property in northern Alberta, Canada, he coexists with eight beaver families. The previous owner shot them, but Avis welcomed them back. To visitors, the fallen trees, chewed bark and flooded creeks make the beaver’s work look like destruction. Avis loves capitalizing on this frequent misconception to change their mental model.

Beavers are ecosystem engineers. Their dams hold millions of liters of water, slowing runoff and restoring natural hydrology. Their appetite creates open space and new growth. Most importantly, they don’t just sustain life — they expand it. Biodiversity increases 28-fold where beavers build. That means more opportunity for life to flourish.

The beaver has a footprint, but it disturbs in a way that produces abundance. In ecological terms, it is not neutral. It is regenerative.

Choosing our impact

Humans, Avis argues, must learn to be regenerative as well. He contrasts the three paradigms simply:

• Conventional eliminates life and turns it into products.
• Sustainable sees the human footprint as a liability that must be minimized.
• Regenerative accepts that humans have an impact and chooses whether that impact is positive or negative.

“There is no such thing as neutral,” Avis comments. We are always moving toward more or less life.

The regenerative paradigm is therefore not a moral plea, nor a nostalgic call to return to a pre-industrial past. It is a systems-level redesign based on ecology, feedback and abundance. It treats humans not as interlopers in a natural world, but as participants with the capacity to restore, enhance and even accelerate life.

The future, Avis concludes, is not about sustaining a damaged Earth — it is about regenerating it.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

” post-content-short=” Fair Observer’s Communications and Outreach officer, Roberta Campani, speaks with Rob Avis, Chief Engineering Officer at 5th World, about how we must rethink humanity’s relationship with the environment. Avis lays out three paradigms for how societies view their impact on nature: the…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Roberta Campani and Rob Avis argue that humanity must move beyond both extractive growth and minimalist sustainability toward a regenerative approach rooted in ecology. Beavers exemplify positive ecological disturbance, increasing biodiversity rather than reducing impact. Humans will always leave a footprint, but the choice is whether it creates more life or less.” post-date=”Nov 18, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Want to Save the Planet? Beavers Have the Answers” slug-data=”fo-talks-want-to-save-the-planet-beavers-have-the-answers”>

Erik Geurts” post_date=”November 17, 2025 07:41″ pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/video/fo-talks-bolivia-turns-right-how-rodrigo-paz-ended-20-years-of-left-wing-rule/” pid=”159157″ post-content=”

Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh and political consultant Erik Geurts discuss Rodrigo Paz’s historic presidential victory in Bolivia. After nearly two decades of left-wing dominance under the Movement for Socialism (Movimiento al Socialismo, MAS), Paz’s win on October 19 marks a dramatic shift. The conversation explores what this transition means for Bolivia’s fragile economy, its deep social divides and the wider rightward turn sweeping Latin America.

Geurts argues that Paz’s election signals the collapse of a political and economic model that has dominated Bolivia since 2006. But whether the new direction can endure remains an open question.

Rodrigo Paz wins in Bolivia

Geurts begins by describing the election as “definitely a turning point in Bolivia,” not merely a reaction to incumbents or fatigue with the MAS establishment. In his view, the key story is the end of the 21st-century socialist model associated with former Bolivian President Evo Morales and his party. For years, that model relied on centralized control, gas rents and heavy subsidies. As reserves dried up and the Central Bank was used as a political checkbook, the model became exhausted.

Paz’s election victory reflects the public’s desire for a new approach that reopens the country to private enterprise and global markets. The shift will also reshape foreign relations. Bolivia is expected to move away from its alignment with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua. Now, experts believe it will seek stronger ties with neighbors like Argentina and Chile, as well as the United States to the north.

Paz’s victory, Geurts says, is like a “Cinderella story,” as he was a complete underdog who defied expectations and rose to great heights. In the first round, he trailed badly in the polls but ended up ahead of the field. In the runoff, he defeated former Bolivian President Jorge “Tuto” Quiroga, a political heavyweight, despite running on a much vaguer economic message. Paz presented himself as the less threatening option, a leader who promised change without the sharp edges of shock therapy.

Fixing Bolivia’s economy

Sworn into office on November 8, Paz has inherited an economy strained by inflation, shrinking gas output, fiscal deficits and a severely overvalued currency. Much of the crisis stems from years of underinvestment in the energy sector and an exchange-rate policy that encouraged imports while stifling private exports.

Paz offered few specifics during his campaign, but he may be forced to make tough choices as president. That includes seeking International Monetary Fund support — something Bolivian voters associate with austerity and foreign interference — and potentially floating the exchange rate. Paz has rejected the idea publicly, favoring a strategy of backtracking. Geurts insists that gradual adjustments do not “solve the issue of overvaluation.”

Despite these challenges, Paz is beginning his term with a sizable parliamentary advantage. His party and two allied pro-business parties together hold more than 80% of seats, giving him the votes needed for structural reform. These alliances are reinforced by personal and political ties: Quiroga has pledged cooperation, and Bolivian politician Samuel Doria Medina — whose party is the third-largest — has lent advisors and political capital to Paz.

Still, the president faces internal complications. His own party grew too quickly to be cohesive or experienced. His vice president, former Bolivian police officer Edmand Lara Montaño, is controversial for the radical way he expresses himself in public, such as stating it is his job to hold Paz accountable and denounce the president if he finds corruption. Implementing an economic overhaul will require discipline across a coalition that was not originally built for governing.

Polarization in Bolivia

Bolivia’s divides are longstanding: highlands versus lowlands, indigenous versus urban, MAS loyalists versus opponents. Roughly 70% of Bolivians now live in cities and are deeply embedded in the national economy. These voters urgently want dollars, fuel and stability; if Paz can deliver those basics, they will likely stay with him.

But the MAS base remains powerful. Morales, who is now breaking with his own party and forming a new movement, Evo Pueblo, still commands intense loyalty in the northern Chapare region. According to Geurts, his supporters there “really see him like a kind of a messiah.” Road blockages, marches toward the Bolivian political capital of La Paz and political agitation could quickly return. Managing Morales will likely be Paz’s primary challenge.

The state bureaucracy provides another hurdle. Key judicial and prosecutorial posts remain filled with MAS appointees. Paz will need to overhaul these institutions carefully to avoid accusations of politicization while still enabling effective governance.

The right-wing’s rise in Latin America

Zooming out, Geurts argues that Paz’s win is part of a broader regional cycle. From President Javier Milei in Argentina to President Nayib Bukele in El Salvador and conservative gains in Peru, much of Latin America is turning away from statist economic models and toward leaders promising discipline, security and markets.

Latin American neighbors see Bolivia’s shift as more evidence that the 21st-century socialist wave has crested. Even though left-wing governments in Colombia and Brazil remain in power, they no longer resemble the transformative projects once seen in Bolivia, Ecuador or Venezuela.

For now, Paz represents a break from Bolivia’s past. His leadership will test whether the region’s new right-leaning cycle can move beyond rhetoric and deliver results.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

” post-content-short=” Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh and political consultant Erik Geurts discuss Rodrigo Paz’s historic presidential victory in Bolivia. After nearly two decades of left-wing dominance under the Movement for Socialism (Movimiento al Socialismo, MAS), Paz’s win on October 19…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Erik Geurts discuss Bolivian President Rodrigo Paz Pereira’s unexpected rise to power. Despite starting with a strong pro-business coalition, he must navigate a collapsing economic model and former Bolivian President Evo Morales’s resistance. Paz will test whether the new rightward shift that’s sweeping Latin America can deliver economically.” post-date=”Nov 17, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Bolivia Turns Right: How Rodrigo Paz Ended 20 Years of Left-Wing Rule” slug-data=”fo-talks-bolivia-turns-right-how-rodrigo-paz-ended-20-years-of-left-wing-rule”>

Gary Grappo” post_date=”November 15, 2025 06:03″ pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/video/fo-talks-trumps-20-point-peace-deal-can-israel-and-hamas-finally-end-the-war/” pid=”159130″ post-content=”

Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and former US Ambassador Gary Grappo, who served as Envoy and Head of Mission of the Office of the Quartet Representative Tony Blair in Jerusalem, discuss US President Donald Trump’s 20-point peace deal. The agreement has halted more than two years of war in Gaza and opened a narrow path toward political talks. Gary argues that this is “probably the best chance Israelis and Palestinians have had in at least a decade,” but only if Trump sustains pressure, regional actors cooperate and both sides accept deep, uncomfortable compromises.

Trump’s 20-point peace deal

Atul begins by asking Gary what the deal actually does. Gary explains that the 20-point plan was designed with two specific goals: to stop the fighting in Gaza and secure the release of Israeli hostages. In those terms, it has largely worked.

Yet the plan is intentionally narrow. It is not a grand Middle East peace framework; it focuses almost entirely on Gaza. The West Bank — the deeper, more complex question — appears only in two closing points about Palestinian reform and a future horizon for statehood. The deal’s architecture reflects who shaped it. Outside actors drove the negotiations: the United States, Egypt, Turkey and several Gulf states. Palestinians, apart from their pressured Sunni nationalist militant group, Hamas, had virtually no role in writing the text. That absence of local ownership is one of its core weaknesses.

What next for Gaza?

The agreement lays out three pillars for Gaza’s immediate future: a hostage–prisoner exchange, a transitional authority that excludes Hamas and the disarmament of Hamas’s military infrastructure. That last condition is the most challenging. On the question of Hamas disarmament, Gary admits he is doubtful.

Security is meant to be handled by an International Stabilization Force — a multinational presence inside Gaza. But no country wants to place its troops between Israel’s military, the Israeli Defense Forces and Hamas. Additionally, Israel has already ruled out some likely contributors. Without a credible force on the ground, enforcing disarmament will be extremely difficult.

Meanwhile, Gaza finds itself with staggering humanitarian needs. Gary says that roughly 80% of housing has been damaged or destroyed, basic services have been “largely decimated” and about two million people lack adequate shelter. Aid is now flowing more steadily and famine indicators have improved. However, reconstruction will require an estimated $50–60 billion and credible assurances that Gaza will not return to war in a few years.

How the deal happened

Atul then inquires why the deal happened now. Gary points to Israel’s strike on Hamas leaders in Doha, Qatar. Hitting a state that hosts the largest US base in the Middle East infuriated Trump and united the Gulf in protest. For the first time since the war began in October 2023, Trump chose wider regional interests over unconditional support for Israel.

Trump then applied direct pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, warning that Israel’s international standing had collapsed and that sanctions were being discussed in some capitals. Netanyahu, already weakened at home, had little space to resist.

At the same time, Qatar, Egypt and Turkey leaned heavily on Hamas, leaving the movement with no realistic way to decline. Ironically, Gary notes, the Trump deal looks rather similar to a framework former US President Joe Biden had advanced a year earlier; what changed was leverage and timing, not the basic outline.

What’s next for Israel?

Israel’s calculus is fraught. Netanyahu governs with far-right partners who reject any move toward Palestinian self-determination. Accepting the plan meant swallowing language that hints at a path to Palestinian statehood, which the Israeli right considers anathema.

Israel has withdrawn from roughly half of Gaza but does not want to leave entirely. Many Israelis view the current pause as just round one of a larger confrontation. If Hamas fails to deliver on any key obligation, Israel will have a ready argument for returning militarily, and parts of its leadership expect exactly that.

Politically, Netanyahu also pays a domestic price for appearing to bow to US pressure, deepening questions about how long he can last in office.

International community’s role

Gary argues that the plan would benefit from formal endorsement by the UN Security Council, which would provide legal grounding and global legitimacy. So far, neither Washington nor Israel’s Jerusalem seems interested; they appear to prefer flexibility over binding commitments.

Without broad international buy-in, the reconstruction of Gaza will be slow and vulnerable to renewed violence. Yet regional donors will not invest tens of billions of dollars unless they see a durable political horizon — meaning progress on the Palestinian question that goes beyond Gaza alone.

Will the peace deal hold?

Gary is cautious in his prognosis of the deal. He believes “The odds are not even 50/50 in their favor right now, despite what President Trump might say,” he states. After all, the peace plan faces tremendous obstacles: Hamas’s resistance to disarmament, Israel’s reluctance to withdraw fully and the huge task of building a functioning governing authority and security force in a shattered territory.

Crucially, he stresses that the deal relies on Trump’s personal, sustained engagement. If the White House’s attention drifts even briefly, the plan could unravel quickly.

Gary concludes with a structural truth: Gaza and the West Bank cannot be solved separately. Every serious peace effort has recognized that the core issues — territory, identity, security, statehood and trust — run across both. The current plan is a necessary start, but until both territories are engaged within a single political framework, and until leadership on all sides rebuilds a minimum of trust, no agreement can truly endure.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

” post-content-short=” Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and former US Ambassador Gary Grappo, who served as Envoy and Head of Mission of the Office of the Quartet Representative Tony Blair in Jerusalem, discuss US President Donald Trump’s 20-point peace deal. The agreement has halted more than two years of war in Gaza and…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Atul Singh and Gary Grappo examine US President Donald Trump’s 20-point peace deal, which has halted Gaza bloodshed and secured a hostage release. The plan, though the strongest diplomacy in a decade, faces enormous obstacles, including Hamas’s refusal to disarm and Israel’s reluctance to accept Palestinian statehood. The deal’s endurance requires sustained US pressure.” post-date=”Nov 15, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Trump’s 20-Point Peace Deal: Can Israel and Hamas Finally End the War?” slug-data=”fo-talks-trumps-20-point-peace-deal-can-israel-and-hamas-finally-end-the-war”>

Ricardo Vanella” post_date=”November 14, 2025 05:32″ pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/politics/fo-talks-javier-mileis-chainsaw-revolution-what-his-midterm-victory-means-for-argentina/” pid=”159117″ post-content=”

Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh and Argentine international-relations analyst Ricardo Vanella discuss Argentine President Javier Milei’s sweeping midterm victory. The election marks a change of direction for Argentina and global politics. Argentina’s voters, weary of decline and disillusioned with the establishment, have chosen disruption over tradition.

Vanella describes the moment as a collective search for “direction, credibility and effectiveness in public life.” From Washington to Latin America, Argentina is being watched as a test case for whether a nation long defined by volatility can reconcile freedom with stability and national identity with global integration. The vote, he argues, was a statement that now must be translated into results through balance, strong institutions and a capable international posture. What is ultimately at stake is Argentina’s ability to trust itself once more.

Milei’s chainsaw politics

Khattar Singh turns to Milei’s fiscal revolution — his “chainsaw politics.” Vanella notes that the president inherited an economy wrecked by inflation, deficits and institutional fatigue. Drastic budget cuts and public-sector layoffs were dramatized for campaign effect, but in truth, the president did not cut everything. Instead, this could be a calculated impact strategy: the perception of radical action to restore fiscal credibility while avoiding mass upheaval.

The reforms are proceeding with surprising social calm. Argentines have endured a century of stop-start crises, and that inertia remains Milei’s biggest domestic obstacle. Economic transformation without social cohesion won’t be sustainable. The president’s alliance with former Argentine President Mauricio Macri’s Republican Proposal party and long-standing US support could prove decisive in maintaining stability during this reset.

Challenges for Milei

For ordinary Argentines, inflation is easing, but prices remain “salty.” The Argentine peso’s overvaluation against the US dollar keeps living costs high and wages weak. Vanella explains the country’s vicious cycle: devaluing the peso instantly lifts street prices. Any monetary adjustment, therefore, requires delicate “fine-tuning of the dollar … in baby steps” to align currency levels with real productivity while avoiding another price surge.

Even with consumer confidence ticking upward and inflation slowing to 2.1% per month, expectations are fragile. Citizens anxiously hope the new government will let them see “the light at the end of the tunnel.” Fiscal discipline is necessary, he says, but not sufficient: “You cannot build prosperity just by cutting costs.” True growth must come from production, trade and innovation, which he calls “smart economics.”

Milei’s foreign policy

Internationally, Milei is reanchoring Argentina toward the West. He labeled China an assassin state, rejected Argentina’s entry into the BRICS bloc in December 2023 and pledged to move the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem in 2026. These steps, alongside closer ties with Washington, signal strategic westward diversification.

Still, China remains indispensable as a buyer of soy, lithium and energy. Argentina seeks to align itself with the West, not isolate itself from China. The shift is geopolitical, not commercial: Argentina’s capital of Buenos Aires leans politically toward the US and Israel while maintaining trade with all partners. In this balancing act, Argentina seeks influence without dependence.

Milei’s most radical economic promise, full dollarization, illustrates the same trade-off logic. Dollarization can crush inflation and reduce volatility, as Ecuador and El Salvador have illustrated, but it strips away policy tools. For now, Milei’s team has halted the plan while stabilization proceeds. “Dollarization can kill inflation,” Vanella observes, “but it can’t replace institutions.”

Milei’s influence in South America

Milei’s rise reverberates beyond Argentina. His victory underscores a regional break from long-entrenched parties and ideologies. From Bolivia, where the once-dominant Movement for Socialism movement failed to reach the presidential election’s final round on October 19, to Chile, where voters are restless ahead of new polls for its upcoming November 16 presidential election, South America’s political map is being redrawn.

Vanella calls Argentina “a laboratory of liberal experimentation in Latin America.” The region’s new divide is no longer left versus right but establishment versus anti-establishment. Citizens now reward outsiders and staunch reformers who promise competence and integrity over ideological purity. The new axis, in his words, is “efficacy and integrity versus the old machine.”

Whether Milei’s revolution endures will depend on converting disruption into durable governance, restoring trust at home while redefining leadership across the hemisphere. For now, Argentina stands as the loudest chapter in a continental experiment. It’s a nation testing whether liberty, discipline and credibility can coexist long enough to build a new future.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

” post-content-short=” Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh and Argentine international-relations analyst Ricardo Vanella discuss Argentine President Javier Milei’s sweeping midterm victory. The election marks a change of direction for Argentina and global politics. Argentina’s voters, weary of…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Ricardo Vanella examine how Argentine President Javier Milei’s midterm landslide has transformed Argentina into a test of libertarian reform. Milei must turn disruption into stable governance while redefining Argentina’s alliances. His “chainsaw politics” are already reshaping South America’s political landscape.” post-date=”Nov 14, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Javier Milei’s Chainsaw Revolution: What His Midterm Victory Means for Argentina” slug-data=”fo-talks-javier-mileis-chainsaw-revolution-what-his-midterm-victory-means-for-argentina”>

Sam Raus” post_date=”November 13, 2025 07:17″ pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/us-news/fo-talks-snap-in-danger-what-the-us-government-shutdown-means-for-40-million-americans/” pid=”159110″ post-content=”

[On November 12, US President Donald Trump signed a funding bill, officially ending the US government shutdown.]

Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh and political analyst Sam Raus discuss the historically long US government shutdown that began on October 1. Their conversation examines why Washington failed to keep the lights on, how the crisis threatened Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for nearly 40 million Americans, and what the moment reveals about deeper structural problems — from wage stagnation to the widening economic divide. What emerges is a portrait of a country whose social safety net is straining under political dysfunction and economic pressure.

Shutdown explained

Khattar Singh begins by asking why the government once again ground to a halt. Raus explains that shutdowns have become almost routine because Congress repeatedly fails to pass a full budget and instead relies on temporary continuing resolutions to extend current spending levels. This year, that stopgap measure failed.

According to Raus, Democrats refused to back the Grand Old Party-drafted spending bills because they want the Trump administration’s healthcare reforms reversed and some Covid-era insurance subsidies extended. As a result, Congress deadlocked and federal funding lapsed on October 1.

At that time, the shutdown primarily hit federal workers and agencies. Museums, congressional offices and several government departments closed. Private donations even covered military paychecks — a striking reminder of how vulnerable federal operations become when political negotiations collapse.

What happened to SNAP benefits?

A major controversy of the shutdown came with the fate of the SNAP, a federal program that provides monthly benefits to low-income families to help them purchase food. Congress could not reopen the government or pass a standalone bill funding SNAP, so its clients ultimately saw their benefits disappear on November 1.

More than 40 million Americans rely on its monthly electronic benefit transfer disbursements to afford basic groceries. Roughly 12–13% of the US population depends on food stamps, and recipients are overwhelmingly concentrated in low-income communities: rural areas of the South, inner cities and regions where job growth and upward mobility have stalled.

SNAP serves many who work but remain trapped in unstable, low-wage jobs or the gig economy. For these families, the loss of benefits is an existential crisis. Raus notes that, unlike healthcare policy, the effects here are immediate: “People eat every single day and so they’re going to notice this in their pocketbooks really, really fast.”

Wage crisis in America

The dependence of so many working families on food stamps, Raus argues, points to a much deeper problem: the stagnation of working-class wages. While inflation has cooled slowly since the pandemic, prices remain far higher than pre-COVID-19 norms. Wage growth has not kept pace.

Most Americans do not experience economic health through the stock market or GDP figures. They experience it through the purchasing power of their paycheck. When grocery, energy and housing costs remain high, a barely-moving paycheck becomes a catastrophe. This is precisely why SNAP has become not just a poverty program but a working-class stabilizer.

The strain, he suggests, reveals “a crisis of government dependency” — not because people are lazy, but because the private-sector wage structure is failing to support basic needs.

Consequences of shutdown

The longer any government shutdown continues, the more economic and social instability it breeds. Raus expresses worry about civil unrest, noting that online threats of theft and break-ins reflect profound desperation. As he puts it, “We know hungry people … do rather irrational things.”

Beyond SNAP, layoffs across federal agencies accelerated as the Office of Management and Budget used the shutdown to downsize government workforces. Many who believed federal jobs were secure likely received a rude awakening. No job, public or private, is immune to sudden disruption.

Raus sees the lasting memory of this crisis reshaping political narratives. One side will demand more universal social programs, arguing that inconsistent funding makes selective benefits too vulnerable. The other side will call for a reduced federal role, insisting that an unreliable government should not be responsible for essential services in the first place.

Growing economic divide

Khattar Singh asks whether the shutdown will widen America’s economic inequality. Raus believes the divide stems from long-standing forces — wage stagnation, inflation, industry disruption — but says the shutdown intensifies the stress on communities already near the edge.

He expects different sectors and regions to recalibrate. Government-dependent industries will shrink. Families who relied on stable benefits will face new uncertainty. States, charities and local institutions may shoulder more responsibility as trust in federal institutions remains at historic lows.

In Raus’s view, this moment exposes the fragility of American safety nets. Social Security faces long-term shortfalls. Healthcare remains, in his words, “such a hot mess.” And the shutdown shows how easily even core programs can collapse when Congress cannot perform the basic function of funding the government.

This crisis may force the country to finally confront realities it has avoided for decades — that the systems meant to protect Americans are quite fragile, and deeply vulnerable to political paralysis.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

” post-content-short=” Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh and political analyst Sam Raus discuss the historically long US government shutdown that began on October 1. Their conversation…” post_summery=”In this episode of FO° Talks, Rohan Khattar Singh and Sam Raus explore why the October–November US government shutdown threatened benefits for nearly 40 million Americans. The crisis exposed deeper structural weaknesses, from stagnant wages to fragile safety-net systems. The shutdown, now officially concluded, highlights how political dysfunction can quickly spill into economic hardship for working families.” post-date=”Nov 13, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: SNAP in Danger: What the US Government Shutdown Means for 40 Million Americans” slug-data=”fo-talks-snap-in-danger-what-the-us-government-shutdown-means-for-40-million-americans”>

Glenn Carle” post_date=”November 12, 2025 07:14″ pUrl=”https://www.fairobserver.com/region/asia_pacific/fo-exclusive-chinas-purges-japans-far-right-and-americas-gamble-the-new-asian-order/” pid=”159087″ post-content=”

Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI Senior Partner Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer who now advises companies, governments and organizations on geopolitical risk, examine the fast-moving power shifts across East Asia and the Pacific. Their conversation spans new leadership in Japan and South Korea, the United States’ strategic realignment and the intensifying economic and political confrontation between Washington and Beijing.

Japan’s first female prime minister

Japan’s new leader, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, stands for strong patriotism and culture-warrior traditionalism. The first woman to lead Japan in nearly a thousand years, she is a protégé of the late Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and models herself on his legacy. Like Abe, she champions the “three arrows:” fiscal expansion, monetary easing and structural reform.

However, Takaichi does not seem to care about structural reform. If she repeats Abe’s spending and easing policies, the yen could crash spectacularly. She faces a changed economic landscape — overall inflation is at 2.7% and food inflation is above 7% — and limited room to maneuver. There are significant dangers in her economic approach and assertive nationalism.

Takaichi has also aligned herself with former US President Donald Trump’s $550 billion investment pledge in exchange for tariff relief, signaling continuity with Washington rather than confrontation. Yet her nationalist views have strained regional ties. She visits the Yasukuni Shrine, which honors Japan’s war dead (including convicted war criminals), more often than most of her predecessors. She portrays Japan’s imperial-era actions as anti-colonial and pro-Asian, echoing the propaganda of the wartime Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere — a World War II concept promoting Asian unity under Japanese domination.

South Korea’s new direction

South Korean President Lee Jae-myung, a reformist former governor of Gyeonggi Province, came to power on June 4 after a coup attempt by his predecessor, President Yoon Suk Yeol. The transition ended months of political turmoil but opened debate over his softer stance toward North Korea and China. He is also pursuing a historic opening toward Japan, despite public skepticism.

This outreach remains fraught because of Japan’s resurgent nationalism and unresolved historical trauma — memories of wartime aggression and racial hierarchy that remain raw and bitter. Reconciliation efforts now collide with Japan’s revival of prewar symbols and narratives.

America’s strategic shift

Turning westward, US military and diplomatic doctrine is undergoing a substantial historic shift toward the Indo-Pacific. This shift is designed, as Glenn describes, to “rope India into helping the United States parry China.” Washington is pressing allies to double their defense budgets, and both Japan and Australia have responded through initiatives like the AUKUS submarine pact with the US and the United Kingdom.

The Pentagon’s strategy now emphasizes dispersed operations such as Agile Combat Employment and Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations, adapting to China’s vastly larger navy and long-range missile arsenal. Glenn likens the moment to past struggles between maritime coalitions and continental powers — from the Triple Entente of France, Great Britain and Russia before World War I to the various Ottoman–Venetian wars (1396–1718).

Smaller coastal states are hedging their bets. They are now balancing ties with the rising hegemon, China, while relying on the distant hegemon, the US, for defense. This dynamic, Glenn concludes, is “proof of a relative US decline,” prompting regional actors to diversify their security and trade relationships.

A cold war without peace

A senior US State Department official tells FOI that the US and China are now in a full-scale cold war. Washington has restricted Chinese access to advanced technology and leaned on allies to follow suit. The Dutch government, under US pressure, nationalized the Chinese-owned semiconductor firm Nexperia to curb technology transfer.

Beijing retaliated by restricting exports of rare earth minerals, which are critical for manufacturing countless electronic products and electric vehicles. China dominates this field, controlling about 60% of global mining and over 90% of refining capacity. In response, Trump threatened a 100% tariff on Chinese goods, briefly erasing $2 trillion from stock markets before retreating. (After this episode was recorded, from October 31–November 1, Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping met at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Gyeongju, South Korea, to seek leverage for a trade deal.)

China has suspended imports of soybeans, coal, oil and liquefied natural gas from the US, devastating farm states. “People in the Midwest are saying that, look, last year, China imported 1.7 million metric tons of soybean from the US … this year, in September, China imported none,” Atul remarks.

China’s own economy shows deep strain. Growth slowed to 4.8% in the third quarter of 2025, and factory-gate prices have fallen for three consecutive years. The Chinese Communist Party’s recent plenary session, the Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee held in Beijing from October 20–23, saw the purge of 11 Central Committee members and 22 generals. Atul calls it “Maoism without Mao.” The late Deng Xiaoping’s era of reform and opening up to the world appears over as Beijing doubles down on technology self-sufficiency, supply-chain security and control over Taiwan.

Both powers are paying heavy costs. The US could restrict spare parts for China’s Boeing aircraft fleet, while Beijing could block pharmaceutical ingredients vital to American medicine. Each side is increasing the pressure without fully grasping the other’s culture or calculus.

In summary, East Asia is experiencing historic changes that cannot be stopped. Across the Pacific, from Tokyo to Seoul, Beijing to Washington, the region stands at the center of a new global struggle — one defined not by ideology, but by hard competition for security, resources and technological dominance.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

” post-content-short=” Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and FOI Senior Partner Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer who now advises companies, governments and organizations on geopolitical risk, examine the fast-moving power shifts across East Asia and the Pacific. Their conversation spans new leadership in Japan and South…” post_summery=”In this section of the October 2025 episode of FO° Exclusive, Atul Singh and Glenn Carle examine East Asia’s shifting power balance. Japan turns toward nationalism under Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, South Korea reforms after political upheaval and the US redefines its Indo-Pacific strategy. Meanwhile, a deepening US–China cold war now reshapes trade, technology and the global economy.” post-date=”Nov 12, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: China’s Purges, Japan’s Far-Right and America’s Gamble: The New Asian Order” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-chinas-purges-japans-far-right-and-americas-gamble-the-new-asian-order”>