Letter from United States Citizens to Friends in Europe

Champaign, IL, fboyle@law.uiuc.edu

LETTER FROM UNITED STATES CITIZENS TO FRIENDS IN EUROPE

The central fallacy of the pro-war celebrants is the equation between “American values” as understood at home and the exercise of United States economic and especially military power abroad.

Following the 11 September 2001 suicide attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, U.S. President George W. Bush has declared an open-ended “war on terrorism”. This war has no apparent limits, in place, time or the extent of destruction that may be inflicted. There is no telling which country may be suspected of hiding “terrorists” or declared to be part of an “axis of evil”. The eradication of “evil” could last much longer than the world can withstand the destructive force to be employed. The Pentagon is already launching bombs described as producing the effect of earthquakes and is officially considering the use of nuclear weapons, among other horrors in its constantly improving arsenal.

The material destruction envisaged is immeasurable. So is the human damage, not only in terms of lives, but also in terms of the moral desperation and hatred that are certain to be felt bymmillions of people who can only watch helplessly as their world is devastated by a country, the United States, which assumes that its moral authority is as absolute and unchallengeable as its military power.

We, as United States citizens, have a special responsibility to oppose this mad rush to war. You, as Europeans, also have a special responsibility. Most of your countries are military allies of the United States within NATO. The United States claims to act in self-defense, but also to defend “the interests of its allies and friends”. Your countries will inevitably be implicated in U.S. military adventures. Your future is also in jeopardy.

Many informed people both within and outside your governments are aware of the dangerous folly of the war path followed by the Bush administration. But few dare speak out honestly. They are intimidated by the various forms of retaliation that can be taken against “friends” and “allies” who fail to provide unquestioning support. They are afraid of being labeled “anti-American” — the same label absurdly applied to Americans themselves who speak out against war policies and whose protests are easily drowned out in the chorus of chauvinism dominating the U.S. media. A sane and frank European criticism of the Bush administration’s war policy can help anti-war Americans make their voices heard.

Celebrating power may be the world’s oldest profession among poets and men of letters. As supreme world power, the United States naturally attracts its celebrants who urge the nation’s political leaders to go ever farther in using their military might to impose virtue on a recalcitrant world. The theme is age-old and forever the same: the goodness of the powerful should be extended to the powerless by the use of force.

The central fallacy of the pro-war celebrants is the equation between “American values” as understood at home and the exercise of United States economic and especially military power abroad.

Self-celebration is a notorious feature of United States culture, perhaps as a useful means of assimilation in an immigrant society. Unfortunately, September 11 has driven this tendency to new extremes. Its effect is to reinforce a widespread illusion among U.S. citizens that the whole world is fixated, in admiration or in envy, on the United States as it sees itself: prosperous, democratic, generous, welcoming, open to all races and religions, the epitome of universal human values and the last best hope of mankind.

In this ideological context, the question raised after September 11, “Why do they hate us?” has only one answer: “Because we are so good!” Or, as is commonly claimed, they hate us because of “our values”.

Most U.S. citizens are unaware that the effect of U.S. power abroad has nothing to do with the “values” celebrated at home, and indeed often serves to deprive people in other countries of the opportunity to attempt to enjoy them should they care to do so.

In Latin America, Africa and Asia, U.S. power has more often than not been used to prop up the remnants of colonial regimes and unpopular dictators, to impose devastating commercial and financial conditions, to support repressive armed forces, to overthrow or cripple by sanctions relatively independent governments, and finally to send bombers and cruise missiles to rain down death and destruction.

The “Right of Self-Defense”

(1) Whose right?

Since September 11, the United States feels under attack. As a result its government claims a “right to self-defense” enabling it to wage war on its own terms, as it chooses, against any country it designates as an enemy, without proof of guilt or legal procedure.

Obviously, such a “right of self-defense” never existed for countries such as Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Libya, Sudan or Yugoslavia when they were bombed by the United States. Nor will it be recognized for countries bombed by the United States in the future. This is simply the right of the strongest, the law of the jungle. Exercising such a “right”, denied all others, cannot serve “universal values” but only undermines the very concept of a world order based on universal values with legal recourse open to all on a basis of equality.

A “right” enjoyed only by one entity — the most powerful — is not a right but a privilege exercised only to the detriment of the rights of others.

(2) How is the United States to “defend” itself?

Supposedly in self-defense, the United States launched a war against Afghanistan. This was not an action specially designed to respond to the unique events of September 11. On the contrary, it was exactly what the United States was already doing, and had already planned to do, as outlined in Pentagon documents: bomb other countries, send military forces onto foreign soil and topple their governments. The United States is openly planning an all-out war — not excluding use of nuclear weapons — against Iraq, a country it has been bombing for a decade, with the proclaimed aim of replacing its government with leaders selected by Washington.

(3) Precisely what is being “defended”?

What is being defended is related to what was attacked.

Traditionally, “defense” means defense of national territory. On September 11, an attack actually took place on and against U.S. territory. This was not a conventional attack by a major power designed to seize territory. Rather, it was an anonymous strike against particular targeted institutions. In the absence of any claim of responsibility, the symbolic nature of the targets may have been assumed to be self-explanatory. TheWorld Trade Center clearly symbolized U.S. global economic power, while the Pentagon represented U.S. military power. Thus, it seems highly unlikely that the September 11 attacks were symbolically directed against “American values” as celebrated in the United States.

Rather, the true target seems to have been U.S.economic and military power as it is projected abroad. According to reports, 15 of the 19 identified hijackers were Saudi Arabians hostile to the presence of U.S. military bases on Saudi soil. September 11 suggests that the nation projecting its power abroad is vulnerable at home, but the real issue is U.S. intervention abroad. Indeed the Bush wars are designed precisely to defend and strengthen U.S. power abroad. It is U.S. global power projection that is being defended, not domestic freedoms and way of life.

In reality, foreign wars are more likely to undermine the domestic values cherished by civilians at home than to defend or spread them. But governments that wage aggressive wars always drum up domestic support by convincing ordinary people that war is necessary to defend or to spread noble ideas. The principal difference between the imperial wars of the past and the global thrust of the United States today is the far greater means of destruction available. The disproportion between the material power of destruction and the constructive power of human wisdom has never been more dangerously unbalanced. Intellectuals today have the choice of joining the chorus of those who celebrate brute force by rhetorically attaching it to “spiritual values”, or taking up the more difficult and essential task of exposing the arrogant folly of power and working with the whole of humanity to create means of reasonable dialogue, fair economic relations and equal justice.

The right to self-defense must be a collective human right. Humanity as a whole has the right to defend its own survival against the “self-defense” of an unchecked superpower. For half a century, the United States has repeatedly demonstrated its indifference to the collateral death and destruction wrought by its self-proclaimed efforts to improve the world. Only by joining in solidarity with the victims of U.S. military power can we in the rich countries defend whatever universal values we claim to cherish.

* * * * * * * *

LIST OF SIGNATURES

Daphne Abeel, Journalist, Cambridge, MA.

Julie L. Abraham, Professor of English, New York City.

Michael Albert, ZNet, Boston.

Janet Kestenberg Amighi. Anthropologist, Hahneman University, Philadelphia.

Electa Arenal, Hispanic & Luso-Brazilian Literatures, City University of New York

Anthony Arnove, Editor/Publisher, South End Press, Boston.

Stanley Aronowitz, Center for Cultural Studies, City University of New York.

Dean Baker, economist, Center for Economic and Policy Research,Washington, DC

Houston A. Baker, Jr., Duke University, Durham, NC.

David Barsamian, Director, Alternative Radio, Boulder, CO.

Rosalyn Baxandall, Chair, American Studies at SUNY-Old Westbury.

Medea Benjamin, Founding Director, Global Exchange, San Francisco.

Dick Bennett, Professor Emeritus, University of Arkansas.

Larry Bensky, KPFA/Pacifica Radio.

Joel Bleifuss, Editor, In These Times, Chicago

Chana Bloch, Professor of English, Mills College.

William Blum, author, Washington, DC.

Magda Bogin, Writer, Columbia University.

Patrick Bond, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.

Gray Brechin, Department of Geography, University of California, Berkeley.

Renate Bridenthal, Professor Emerita of History, The City University of New York.

Linda Bullard, environmentalist, USA/ Europe.

Judith Butler, University of California, Berkeley.

Bob Buzzanco, Professor of History, University of Houston.

Helen Caldicott, pediatrician, author, founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility.

John Cammett, historian, New York.

Stephanie M.H. Camp, Assistant Professor of History, University of Washington.

Ward Churchill, Author, Boulder, CO.

John P. Clark, Professor of Philosophy, Loyola University, New Orleans.

Dan Coughlin, Radio Executive Director, Washington, DC.

Sandi Cooper, historian, New York.

Lawrence Davidson, Professor of Middle East history, West Chester University, PA

David Devine, Professor of English, Paris, France.

Douglas Dowd, economist, Bologna, San Francisco.

Madhu Dubey, Professor, English and Africana Studies, Brown University

Richard B. Du Boff, Bryn Mawr College, PA.

Peter Erlinder, Past President, National Lawyers Guild, Law Professor, St. Paul, MN.

Francis Feeley, Professor of American Studies, Université Stendhal, Grenoble.

Richard Flynn, of Literature and Philosophy, Georgia Southern University.

Michael S. Foley, Assistant Professor of History, City University of New York.

John Bellamy Foster, Eugene, OR.

H. Bruce Franklin, Professor of English and American Studies, Rutgers University

Jane Franklin, Author and historian, Montclair, NJ.

Oscar H. Gandy, Jr., Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania.

Jamshed Ghandhi, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.

Larry Gross, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania.

Beau Grosscup, Professor of International Relations, CSU Chico, CA.

Zalmay Gulzad, Professor of Asian-American Studies, Loyola University, Chicago.

Thomas J. Gumbleton, Auxiliary Bishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit.

Marilyn Hacker, Professor of English, The City College of New York

Robin Hahnel, Professor of Economics, American University, Washington, DC.

Edward S. Herman, economist and media analyst, Philadelphia.

Marc W. Herold, University of New Hampshire.

John L. Hess, Journalist and correspondent, New York City.

David U. Himmelstein, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School.

W.G . Huff, University of Glasgow.

Adrian Prentice Hull, California State University, Monterey Bay

Marsha Hurst, Director, Health Advocacy Program, Sarah Lawrence College, NY.

David Isles, Associate Prof. of Mathematics, Tufts University, Medford, MA.

Robert Jensen, School of Journalism, University of Texas.

Diana Johnstone, journalist, Paris, France.

John Jonik, Political Cartoonist/Activist, Philadelphia.

Louis Kampf, Professor Emeritus of Literature, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Mary Kaye, Professor of Fine Arts, Art Institute of Boston, Lesley University.

Douglas Kellner, University of California, Los Angeles.

Michael King, Senior News Editor, The Austin Chronicle, TX.

Gabriel Kolko, author, Amsterdam.

Joyce Kolko, author, Amsterdam.

Claudia Koonz, history professor, Duke University, NC.

Joel Kovel, Bard College.

Marilyn Krysl, writer, University of Colorado.

Mark Lance, Philosophy, Justice and Peace, Georgetown University.

Ann J. Lane, University of Virginia.

Karen Latuchie, book editor, New Jersey.

Peggy Law. Executive Director, International Media Project, Oakland, CA.

Amy Schrager Lang, Associate Professor of American Studies, Cambridge, MA.

Helena Lewis, Historian, Harvard University Humanities Center.

Dave Lindorff, Journalist, Maple Glen, Pennsylvania.

Eric Lott, Professor of English, University of Virginia.

Angus Love, Esq., Narberth, PA.

David MacMichael, Director, Association of National Security Alumni, Washington, DC.

Harry Magdoff, co-editor, Monthly Review, New York City.

Sanjoy Mahajan, physicist, University of Cambridge, England.

Michael Marcus, Dept. of Mathematics, City College, NY.

Robert McChesney, University of Illinois.

Jo Ann McNamara, Historian Emerita, Hunter College, NY.

Arthur Mitzman, Emeritus Professor of Modern History, University of Amsterdam.

Robert Naiman, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Washington, DC.

Marilyn Nelson, Poet/Professor, University of Connecticut.

Suzanne Oboler, University of Illinois, Chicago.

Bertell Ollman, Department of Politics, New York University.

Alicia Ostriker, Professor of English, Rutgers University, NJ.

Christian Parenti, author, New College of California.

Michael Parenti, author, Berkeley, CA..

Mark Pavlick, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.

Michael Perelman, Professor of Economics, Chico State University, CA.

Jeff Perlstein, Executive Director, Media Alliance, San Francisco.

David Peterson, writer and researcher, Chicago.

James Petras, State University of New York, Binghamton.

Joan Pinkham, Translator, Amherst, MA.

Lawrence Pinkham, Professor Emeritus of Journalism, University of Massachusetts.

Cathie Platt, Licensed Professional Counselor, Charlottesville, VA.

Gordon Poole, Istituto Universitario Orientale, Naples, Italy.

Douglas Porpora, Professor of Sociology, Drexel University, Philadelphia.

Larry Portis, American Studies, Université Paul Valéry, Montpellier, France.

Ellen Ray, Institute for Media Analysis, New York City.

Elton Rayack, Professor of Economics Emeritus, University of Rhode Island.

Lillian S. Robinson, Simone de Beauvoir Institute, Concordia University, Montreal.

Rick Rozoff, medical social worker, Chicago.

Albert Ruben, writer.

Sten Rudstrom, Theater Artist, Berlin

William H. Schaap, Institute for Media Analysis, New York City.

Ellen Schrecker, Yeshiva University, New York City.

Gretchen Seifert, artist and photographer, Chicago

Anne Shaver, Professor Emerita of English, Denison University, OH.

Gerald E. Shenk, Social & Behavioral Sciences Center, California State University, Seaside.

Mary Shepard, media critic, St Paul, Minnesota.

Francis Shor, professor, Wayne State University, MI.

Robert M. Smith, Brandywine Peace Community, Swarthmore, PA.

Alan Sokal, Professor of Physics, New York University.

Norman Solomon, author and syndicated columnist, San Francisco.

William S. Solomon, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.

Sarah Standefer, nurse, Minneapolis, MN.

Abraham Sussman, Clinical Psychologist, Cambridge, MA.

Malcolm Sylvers, University of Venice, Italy.

Paul M. Sweezy, co-editor, Monthly Review, New York City.

Holly Thau, Psychotherapist, Oregon.

Reetika Vazirani, Writer, New Jersey.

Gore Vidal, writer, Los Angeles

Joe Volk, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Washington, DC.

Lynne Walker, Historian, London.

Karin Wilkins, University of Texas at Austin.

Howard Winant, Temple University, Philadelphia.

Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH, Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School.

George Wright, Department of Political Science, California State University, Chico.

Howard Zinn, writer, Boston, MA.

(total 137)

217-333-7954(voice)
217-244-1478(fax)

fboyle@law.uiuc.edu

Related Posts

LONDON – So far so good, at least on the wider level. While internally Iraq seems on the edge of chaos, the much heralded clash of civilizations between the Muslim and Judaeo-Christian worlds has yet to become apparent. We have anger and despair aplenty in the Arab and Muslim worlds. But very little rushing to the standard and there was no great pilgrimage of warriors to join the fight, as happened when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan twenty years ago, and then, having driven the Red Army out, were left to ferment in that mountainous redoubt. With the armaments supplied by the CIA the mujahidin were transformed into Al Qaeda that became, for a relatively brief moment as these things go, ‘the greatest threat to the homeland that America has ever known.’ Nevertheless a ‘Cold War’ between much of the Muslim world and the West is certainly in full swing. Winston...
The Challenge of Nuclear Weaponsin the Twenty-first CenturyA Path Forward The peoples and governments of the world face an urgent challenge relating to weaponry of mass destruction and particularly to nuclear weaponry.  At the crossroads of technology, terrorism, geopolitical ambition, and policies of preemption are new and potent dangers for humanity. Despite ending the nuclear standoff of the Cold War era, nuclear weaponry is again menacing the peoples of the world with catastrophic possibilities.  We recognize the need for any government to pursue its security interests in accordance with international law; and further, we recognize that distinctive threats to these interests now exist as a result of an active international terrorist network having declared war on the United States and its allies. Nonetheless, we reject the assessment of the current US administration that upgrading a reliance on nuclear weapons is in any sense justified as a response. We find it...
By Karin Wegestal MP, the Social Democratic Partyon behalf of the Swedish Committee for Solidarity with the Yugoslav People During the last decade, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has received more than 500,000 refugees from Croatia and Bosnia, and another 300,000 internally displaced persons, mainly from the province Kosovo and Metohia. For a country with about ten million inhabitants, such an influx of homeless people is obviously a very heavy burden – even under peaceful conditions. But in addition to that, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has been the subject to sanctions from the western powers for close to ten years and its infrastructure was badly hurt through Nato’s intense bombardment during 78 days in 1999. The result of all this is that Yugoslavia, once the most developed industrial country in Eastern Europe, is today the poorest country in Europe. In Serbia excluding Kosovo, with about ten million inhabitants and...

Recent Articles

Tony Robinson October 4, 2026 Violence is easy to recognise when someone is being beaten, shot or killed. It becomes more difficult when nobody is holding a weapon. Poverty, discrimination, exploitation and repression can restrict a human life just as effectively, although they do so in very different ways and with very different consequences. Simply adding more categories to an ever-growing list of forms of violence does not really solve the problem. The more interesting question is what all these different situations have in common and why it makes sense to describe them using the same word. Human beings do not simply react to what happens around them. They remember the past, imagine things that do not yet exist, make plans and undertake projects. Workers organise because they imagine different working conditions; people migrate because they imagine another life somewhere else; social movements emerge because people refuse to accept the...
It’s a matter of principles, courage, vision and pulling together – while the militarist world is falling apart… Peter Langille October 3, 2026 “Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?”The Bertrand Russell—Albert Einstein Manifesto, July 9, 1955 ⁕ The forecast for what’s ahead is worrisome. The sharp rise in armed conflicts over the past three years is adding to what was already the highest level in over seventy years. Genocides, which should be prevented are supported. A shared climate emergency that jeopardises survival is ignored. Diverse polls now suggest that people are war-weary, worried and interested in a more effective United Nations. And, there are viable policy options for a more secure world! Yet governments are doubling-down, betting on more war and investing heavily. If current trends persist,...
Johan Galtung 1930-2024October 2015 Published here on October 3, 2026 Let us focus on Civilization for conflict analysis and remedies. Major forms of disorder use violence; war is state organized violence. The most belligerent states are the United States of America and Israel, both with civilization roots. National Evangelism, the US Protestant Christian civilization– more national than evangelical–justifies US warfare as exceptionalism of a people chosen by God, with a manifest destiny to run the world. Orthodox Judaism justifies Israeli warfare to conquer and expand from Nile to Euphrates as a religious right and duty to the Eternal One. The third most belligerent country, the UK, no longer believes it is God-chosen but chosen by the USA; not quite the same but something. But the root cause of global disorder lies in the Occident–with Islam–seeing itself as the single, universal civilization valid for all at all times, all others being...

TFF on Substack

Discover and subscribe to more peace materials on TFF Substack

Most Popular

Tony Robinson October 4, 2026 Violence is easy to recognise when someone is being beaten, shot or killed. It becomes more difficult when nobody is holding a weapon. Poverty, discrimination, exploitation and repression can restrict a human life just as effectively, although they do so in very different ways and with very different consequences. Simply adding more categories to an ever-growing list of forms of violence does not really solve the problem. The more interesting question is what all these different situations have in common and why it makes sense to describe them using the same word. Human beings do not simply react to what happens around them. They remember the past, imagine things that do not yet exist, make plans and undertake projects. Workers organise because they imagine different working conditions; people migrate because they imagine another life somewhere else; social movements emerge because people refuse to accept the...
It’s a matter of principles, courage, vision and pulling together – while the militarist world is falling apart… Peter Langille October 3, 2026 “Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?”The Bertrand Russell—Albert Einstein Manifesto, July 9, 1955 ⁕ The forecast for what’s ahead is worrisome. The sharp rise in armed conflicts over the past three years is adding to what was already the highest level in over seventy years. Genocides, which should be prevented are supported. A shared climate emergency that jeopardises survival is ignored. Diverse polls now suggest that people are war-weary, worried and interested in a more effective United Nations. And, there are viable policy options for a more secure world! Yet governments are doubling-down, betting on more war and investing heavily. If current trends persist,...
Johan Galtung 1930-2024October 2015 Published here on October 3, 2026 Let us focus on Civilization for conflict analysis and remedies. Major forms of disorder use violence; war is state organized violence. The most belligerent states are the United States of America and Israel, both with civilization roots. National Evangelism, the US Protestant Christian civilization– more national than evangelical–justifies US warfare as exceptionalism of a people chosen by God, with a manifest destiny to run the world. Orthodox Judaism justifies Israeli warfare to conquer and expand from Nile to Euphrates as a religious right and duty to the Eternal One. The third most belligerent country, the UK, no longer believes it is God-chosen but chosen by the USA; not quite the same but something. But the root cause of global disorder lies in the Occident–with Islam–seeing itself as the single, universal civilization valid for all at all times, all others being...
Read More
Living-Peace-Sign-Budapest-copy
Tony Robinson October 4, 2026 Violence is easy to recognise when someone is being beaten, shot or killed. It becomes more difficult when nobody is holding a weapon. Poverty, discrimination, exploitation and repression can restrict a human life just as effectively, although they do so in very different ways and with very different consequences. Simply adding more categories to an ever-growing list of forms of violence does not really solve the problem. The more interesting question is what all these different situations have in common and why it makes sense to describe them using the same word. Human beings do not simply react to what happens around them. They remember the past, imagine things that do not yet exist, make plans and undertake projects. Workers organise because they imagine different working conditions; people migrate because they imagine another life somewhere else; social movements emerge because people refuse to accept the...
b54a1f10-8c65-4f0b-9dd5-4abc0a7d04cc_2659x2659
It’s a matter of principles, courage, vision and pulling together – while the militarist world is falling apart… Peter Langille October 3, 2026 “Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?”The Bertrand Russell—Albert Einstein Manifesto, July 9, 1955 ⁕ The forecast for what’s ahead is worrisome. The sharp rise in armed conflicts over the past three years is adding to what was already the highest level in over seventy years. Genocides, which should be prevented are supported. A shared climate emergency that jeopardises survival is ignored. Diverse polls now suggest that people are war-weary, worried and interested in a more effective United Nations. And, there are viable policy options for a more secure world! Yet governments are doubling-down, betting on more war and investing heavily. If current trends persist,...
010
Johan Galtung 1930-2024October 2015 Published here on October 3, 2026 Let us focus on Civilization for conflict analysis and remedies. Major forms of disorder use violence; war is state organized violence. The most belligerent states are the United States of America and Israel, both with civilization roots. National Evangelism, the US Protestant Christian civilization– more national than evangelical–justifies US warfare as exceptionalism of a people chosen by God, with a manifest destiny to run the world. Orthodox Judaism justifies Israeli warfare to conquer and expand from Nile to Euphrates as a religious right and duty to the Eternal One. The third most belligerent country, the UK, no longer believes it is God-chosen but chosen by the USA; not quite the same but something. But the root cause of global disorder lies in the Occident–with Islam–seeing itself as the single, universal civilization valid for all at all times, all others being...
Screenshot 2026-10-02 011738
Jan ObergPhD, director, The Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, TFFLund, Sweden October 2, 2026 This is my full original manuscript. The Chinese Academy of Social Science, CASS, makes two publications out if it. 1. China’s Five-year plan emphasized the capabilities of basic research and original innovation. It is regarded as the goal of the future social development, which, as required, should be significantly enhanced. Can you comment on the importance of original innovation in research and academic study? I believe it is easier to define “original innovation” in the natural sciences than in social sciences. The breaking points of what constitutes something new, or innovative, are not quite as sharp in the latter. But in both fields it is about opening up something that was closed, unseen, unexplored before – making manifest what was earlier latent. Innovations come in many forms and shapes – naming something that was not...
arctic-circle-map
The agreement is catastrophic both because of what it says and what it doesn’t mention. It reduces further the major asset of security policies: Freedom of action. Jan Oberg TFF director September 25, 2026 A couple of hours before the agreement was signed on September 22, 2026, I published the following 13 hypotheses about what it would most likely contain on TFF Substack (in English). I was wrong on only the first point. Contrary to what Trump had written on his Truth Social platform, it does not appear to come into force immediately. In fact, it turned out to be worse than even I had anticipated. After these hypotheses now come a number of reflections in light of what the agreement actually contains, and does not contain, as well as the way in which it has generally been presented by major media outlets and by the public-service broadcaster DR. My...
girl-5894831_1280
Below are TFF-related media mentions, comments, videos and social media posts published elsewhere but not on this homepage. We happen to catch and list only a fraction. Regarding video comments and debates, we recommend that you go to the TFF Video Channel on Substack where many of them are reproduced. Jan Oberg is a contributor to China Daily – 52 million daily clicks – and Global Times, CGTN and CCTV (the national television), China Investment, Xinhua News Agency and several others. Articles and videos on these media very often multiply into countless Chinese (and Western media) that re-post them from these main media. Thanks to The China Academy, his analyses, interviews and comments are frequently posted on YouTube channels such as Thinkers Forum and Wave Media. These videos are often re-posted on Bilibili (China’s YouTube), the China Content Center on TikTok, and on the Chinese edition of TikTok, Douyin.com. This means reaching hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide over a year. While there are too many to catch on all these...