Michelle Ellner
Venezuelanalysis

Until Washington abandons the idea that it owns the hemisphere, Latin America will never be safe. Not from Abrams, not from coups, not from CIA programs, not from blockades, and not from the Monroe Doctrine.

Elliott Abrams has resurfaced with familiar instructions on how to “fix” Venezuela, a country he neither understands nor respects, yet feels entitled to rearrange like a piece of furniture in Washington’s living room. His new proposal is drenched in the same Cold War fever and colonial mindset that shaped his work in the 1980s, when U.S. foreign policy turned Central America into a graveyard.

My childhood in Venezuela was shaped by stories from our region that the world rarely sees: stories of displacement, of death squads, of villages erased from maps, of governments toppled for daring to act outside Washington’s orbit. And I know exactly who Elliott Abrams is, not from think-tank biographies, but from the grief woven into Central America’s landscape.

Abrams writes with the confidence of someone who has never lived inside the countries his policies have destabilized. His newest argument rests on the most dangerous assumption of all: that the United States has the authority, by virtue of power alone, to decide who governs Venezuela. This is the original sin of U.S. policy in the hemisphere, the one that justifies everything else: the sanctions, the blockades, the covert operations, the warships in the Caribbean. The assumption that the hemisphere is still an extension of U.S. strategic space rather than a region with its own political will.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

The geostrategic context of newfound pressure upon each, their increased bilateral tensions, and rising fears that false flag provocations in Europe could manipulate them into war with one another make it likely that their planned Budapest Summit will be more successful than the Anchorage one.

[This was written on Oct 17, 2025 -Editor AWIP] The next Putin-Trump meeting will soon take place in Budapest. Prior to their last one in Anchorage, the vision that they were working towards was a resource-centric strategic partnership that could then become a steppingstone towards a more comprehensive one in the future.

For that to happen, either Putin had to freeze the frontlines or Trump had to coerce Zelensky into withdrawing from Donbass, but neither could agree to what was requested of them so their New Détente went nowhere.

Even worse, the Europeans then became serious obstacles to peace, even going as far as teaming up with the Brits and Zelensky to propose dangerous “security guarantees” that riled Russia. Trump ramped up his rhetoric against Putin afterwards, arguably due to him being manipulated by Lindsey Graham and Zelensky, thus culminating in the latest talk about sending Tomahawks to Ukraine. It was within this tense context that they talked again, right before Zelensky’s trip to DC, and agreed to meet in Budapest.

Each side is also coming under a lot of newfound pressure nowadays that conceivably influenced their latest call and plans to meet. From Russia’s side, the new TRIPP corridor will inject Western influence along Russia’s southern flank via NATO member Turkiye (despite Russia’s thaw with Azerbaijan), Poland is reviving its long-lost Great Power status along Russia’s western flank, and Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) revealed last month that French and UK troops are already in Ukraine’s Odessa Region.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

The “race of logistics” between Russia and NATO, which is presently unfolding in the context of their proxy war in Ukraine, will continue even after the conflict ends.

Britain, France, Germany, and Poland are usually the first countries to come to mind among those who discuss NATO’s "containment of Russia," but the Netherlands and Belgium are quickly becoming important too.

Rotterdam Port’s chief executive told the Financial Times in mid-summer that space will be reserved for ships carrying military supplies at NATO’s request and that one or more ships “would be docked at the quay for several weeks, four or five times a year.” This will also be coordinated with Antwerp Port. Rotterdam and Antwerp are Europe’s two largest ports so this isn’t an insignificant move.

Moreover, the Netherlands is a founding member of the “military Schengen” that was agreed to with Germany and Poland in early 2024 for facilitating the movement of troops and equipment. Therefore, these moves are very clearly meant to facilitate the movement of US troops and equipment to Russia’s borders in the event of a crisis, thus leading to the Netherlands and Belgium playing crucial roles in "containing" it.

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin
President of Russia (en.kremlin.ru)

Vladimir Putin took part in the plenary session of the 22nd annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

Research Director of the Foundation for Development and Support of the Valdai International Discussion Club Fyodor Lukyanov: Ladies and gentlemen, guests of the Valdai Club!

We are beginning the plenary session of the 22nd annual forum of the Valdai International Discussion Club. It is a great honour for me to invite President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin to this stage.

Mr President, thank you very much for once again finding time to join us. The Valdai Club enjoys this great privilege of meeting with you for 23 consecutive years to discuss the most topical issues. I believe that no one else is that lucky.

The 22nd meeting of the Valdai Club, which took place over the past three days, was titled “The Polycentric World: Instructions for Use.” We are attempting to move from merely understanding and describing this new world to practical matters: that is, comprehending how to live in it, since it is not yet entirely clear.

We may consider ourselves advanced users, but we are still only users of this world. You, however, are at least a mechanic and perhaps even an engineer of this very polycentric world order, so we eagerly await some guidelines for use from you.

Dmitry Medvedev (Дмитрий Медведев)
Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council
TASS

[There are] historical parallels in the behavior of the current leaders of Finland and their predecessors from almost a century ago and recalls the aftermath of their aggressive attacks on Russia

Last week I made a fact-finding trip to the Russian-Finnish border in the Leningrad Region to have a word with local officials and our border guards. Cross-border traffic is frozen, while just recently the checkpoints bustled with activity. At Helsinki’s initiative, normal and mutually beneficial relations that had taken decades to build have been ruined. Suomi’s ordinary people are the hardest-hit. They used to enjoy hefty benefits from thriving bilateral trading and economic relations, and quite naturally these days many do not hesitate to express their anger about the stupid policies that the Finnish authorities are pursuing to the detriment of their interests.

I would like to say a few words about the root causes of this situation. Regrettably, it is not accidental. The whirlwinds of turbulent geopolitical processes merely strip naked old-time problems, exposing their true essence. This is precisely what happened in Finland’s case.

Any trip to our northwestern regions at the beginning of the autumn season invariably serves as a good occasion to recall the most tragic date in the history of the great Russian city on the Neva River – the Nazi blockade during World War II, which began on September 8, 1941. However, it seems that today we are the only ones whose memories of those dark days are still fresh. The direct culprits of those events have been trying to painstakingly erase the traces of their atrocities from historical memory. Or at least to ensure there should be no "undesirable" parallels with their current policies. I am referring not only to Germany, which even at the official level blasphemously refuses to recognize the blockade of Leningrad as a crime against humanity.

Kersasp D. Shekhdar
Please Support Kersie!
✅ Print-Friendly PDF

Thoughts, Musings, Perspectives, Prognostications (Or “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the [AIs]”)

Sergey Latyshev
tsargrad.tv

Putin is good, tolerant, and patient, but does not forgive betrayals.

Why is Azerbaijan breaking into a conflict with Russia? There are at least three reasons for this. And they all dance from one basic – instead of refusing to open against Russia to help Ukraine, the West attracted Azerbaijan to do so. The calculation is made that Baku will be able to frighten Moscow with the prospect of escalation in Transcaucasia, rebel the Azerbaijani diaspora in Russia and thereby save the Ukraine pressed against the wall in conditions when the United States is losing interest in the war in order to prepare for another – with China. The leadership of Azerbaijan, which was probably not only threatened but also tried to seduce him in every possible way (!), got into the games of the great powers against Russia. Baku actually has a weak position, which is an invitation to the role of a "buried coin", when the big participants of the game are played. Putin is good, tolerant, and patient, but does not forgive betrayals.

Arina Korshunova
Oriental Review

Economic consequences of sanctions policy | The EU sanctions against Russia, which began in 2022 and reached the 18th package by June 2025, have led to significant economic difficulties for Europe itself. As von der Leyen notes, sanctions have reduced Russia’s oil and gas revenues by almost 80% compared to pre-war levels, and inflation in Russia exceeds 10%. However, Russia has adapted by redirecting its trade toward China, with bilateral trade reaching $240 billion in 2024, and other BRICS partners, such as India, which increased its imports of Russian oil from 2% to 20% since 2022.

At the same time, the sanctions have boomeranged on Europe. The energy crisis caused by the refusal of Russian supplies (previously accounting for 45% of the EU’s gas and 50% of coal) has led to a 40% increase in energy prices since 2022. This has undermined the competitiveness of European industry, especially in Germany, where jobs have been lost. Inflation in the EU in 2025 reached 5%, increasing pressure on households and businesses. According to the World Bank, EU GDP growth remains sluggish (1-2% per year), while Russia’s economy, despite sanctions, is growing at 3.2%.

Dmitry Trenin
RT.com

Many now speak of humanity’s drift towards World War III, imagining events similar to those of the 20th century. But war evolves. It will not begin with a June 1941 Barbarossa-style invasion or a Cuban Missile Crisis-style nuclear standoff. In fact, the new world war is already underway – it’s just that not everyone has recognized it yet.

For Russia, the pre-war period ended in 2014. For China, it was 2017. For Iran, 2023. Since then, war – in its modern, diffuse form – has intensified. This is not a new Cold War. Since 2022, the West’s campaign against Russia has grown more decisive. The risk of direct nuclear confrontation with NATO over the Ukraine conflict is rising. Donald Trump’s return to the White House created a temporary window in which such a clash could be avoided, but by mid-2025, hawks in the US and Western Europe had pushed us dangerously close again.

This war involves the world’s leading powers: the United States and its allies on one side, China and Russia on the other. It is global, not because of its scale, but because of the stakes: the future balance of power. The West sees the rise of China and the resurgence of Russia as existential threats. Its counteroffensive, economic and ideological, is meant to put a halt to that shift.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

This might backfire if the Global South perceives him to be a Western proxy and Russia intensifies its asymmetrical responses, however, so it’s best for him to relent before it’s too late.

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev was hitherto known as a pragmatic leader who was actively multi-aligning between competing power centers.

As part of that policy, Azerbaijan and Russia became strategic allies, yet he suddenly jeopardized their mutually beneficial relations by stirring up highly publicized trouble with Russia over the past week, which readers can learn more about here and here. It was completely out of character for him to do this, thus raising questions about his motives.

In short, Azerbaijan appears to be taking advantage of reports that Armenia might open the “Zangezur Corridor” but without allowing it to come under Russian control like agreed. That would streamline Turkiye’s military logistics to Central Asia and thus turbocharge its rise as a Eurasian Great Power at the expense of Russian influence there. Even if that unfolds, Aliyev could still maintain his country’s strategic ties with Russia, so he might arguably have image-related motives for unexpectedly jeopardizing them.

To explain, his decision to stir up trouble with Russia might be partially meant to cement his standing among the Central Asian members of the Turkic bloc that Ankara seeks to assemble on the basis of the “Organization of Turkic States” (OTS).

By spinning his moves as “standing up to Russia”, he could be trying to inspire them to follow his lead in future disputes with it. If successful, then the influence that he obtains over them could help prevent Azerbaijan from becoming Turkiye’s junior partner in the OTS.