The Illusion of a Ceasefire: Reframing Control Through Managed Conflict

The Illusion of Peace

by J. André Faust (October 29, 2025)

1. The ceasefire that never was

Officials continue to describe events as a ceasefire, yet air strikes, raids and retaliations have persisted. Recent coverage by BBC News notes fresh Israeli strikes and competing claims of violations (BBC News, 29 Oct 2025). The Toronto Star / Associated Press characterises the truce as fragile, brokered by the United States, and repeatedly tested by flare-ups (Toronto Star / AP, 29 Oct 2025).

2. Language as control

Framing shapes reality for audiences. JD Vance stated that the ceasefire is holding, while allowing for “little skirmishes,” which reframes ongoing violence as incidental (BBC live coverage, 29 Oct 2025). Turkey’s foreign ministry condemned Israeli strikes as open violations of the agreement, demonstrating how identical events are cast in opposite moral terms (Turkey MFA statement, 29 Oct 2025).

3. Controlled chaos as strategy

The United States signals that Israel may strike when attacked, while insisting the broader deal must hold (Toronto Star / AP, 29 Oct 2025). This produces bounded instability, where limited violence is permitted, yet narrative control is maintained. In practice this resembles a managed-conflict model rather than peace.

4. Proxies and plausible deniability

Reports describe rival armed groups in Gaza, sometimes referred to as “Popular Forces,” operating alongside or against Hamas (BBC reporting, 29 Oct 2025). Whether directly armed, tolerated, or simply exploited, such actors create ambiguity that can justify renewed strikes and shift blame. ICRC also criticised a staged recovery of remains as unacceptable, underscoring the information fog that aids deniability (ICRC statement, 29 Oct 2025).

5. The United States as the stabilising illusion

Senior US officials, including the vice-president and the secretary of state, continue high-visibility visits and statements to signal oversight, even as strikes resume and pause. This projects assurance without necessarily imposing accountability (Toronto Star / AP, 29 Oct 2025). The observer’s presence alters outcomes, a political analogue of measurement in physics.

6. Phase one stasis

Coverage indicates the agreement remains stuck in its initial exchange phase, with disputes over the handling of deceased hostages, and continued allegations of violations (Toronto Star / AP, 29 Oct 2025; BBC live, 29 Oct 2025). Activity persists, yet progress stalls, which resembles dynamic stasis rather than transition.

7. The systems view: illusion as policy

In a layered-systems perspective, ceasefire and conflict lie on the same operational curve. Proxies act as disturbance nodes, language acts as a selector, and observation by powerful states functions as a stabiliser. The result is a policy of controlled uncertainty. When instability is instrumentally useful, ceasefire becomes theatre.

8. Applying the 4D Connectivity Model

Within the 4D Connectivity Model, each vertex represents a point of convergence across four dimensions—three spatial and one temporal. Every moment in time, like every position in space, contains an infinite potential field of outcomes. Each decision, observation, or reaction selects one trajectory from that field, momentarily collapsing probability into experience.

Because every vertex in both time and space can unfold into countless possibilities, absolute predictability is impossible. Systems that appear stable are merely temporary alignments within an ever-changing probability matrix. The Israel–Gaza situation illustrates this vividly: each airstrike, statement, or negotiation does not simply change the present — it reshapes the range of all possible futures that follow.

In this framework, time is not a line but a dynamic landscape of branching possibilities. What we call “control” or “peace” exists only as a transient pattern, constantly rewritten by new events and observations. The illusion of a permanent ceasefire collapses under this model, revealing a deeper reality: that every moment generates new dimensions of uncertainty.

About the author

J.  André Faust examines the structural entanglements of politics, economics and society. He explores how single moments, from a lone act of violence to a policy choice, can unfold into decades of social and cultural change.

His approach treats reality like a layered 3D model. Systems overlap, interact and sometimes obscure one another. Forecasts are provisional, hidden layers and feedback loops are often still at work.

Guiding idea: understand connections, trace feedback and revise beliefs as new layers come into view.

References & Sources

1. BBC News (29 Oct 2025). Israel strikes Gaza after accusing Hamas of ceasefire violations. Live updates.
2. Toronto Star / Associated Press (29 Oct 2025). US determined to prevent the collapse of the Gaza ceasefire after overnight airstrikes.
3. International Committee of the Red Cross (29 Oct 2025). Statement on alleged staged recovery of hostage remains.
4. Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs (29 Oct 2025). Statement on Israeli strikes and ceasefire commitments.
5. Al Jazeera (29 Sep 2025). Full text of Trump’s 20-point plan to end the Gaza war.

---

From Ottoman Collapse to Modern Chaos: The Hidden Links Behind Today’s Conflicts

Figure 1. From Ottoman Collapse to Modern Chaos — visual representation of historical fragmentation and modern entanglements.

From the Fall of Empires to the Fracture of Order

How the Ottoman Collapse Still Shapes Today’s Conflicts — and the New Probabilities Ahead

by J. André Faust (October 22, 2025)

Abstract

This essay applies a 4D probabilistic lens to show how the collapse of the Ottoman Empire produced a branching field of geopolitical possibilities whose aftershocks shape the Israel–Palestine crisis and parallel dynamics in Russia–Ukraine. Each historical moment contained multiple potential outcomes that were unknowable to actors within their timeframe. The essay argues that modern double standards and external interventions are not anomalies but structural continuities. Finally, it considers Donald Trump’s re-entry into high-stakes decision-making as a new uncertainty variable that alters the current probability landscape; the realised outcome will only be known after the fact.

When the Ottoman Empire fell in 1918, it released not only provinces but possibilities. Empires do not simply collapse; they disintegrate into probability fields where competing futures coexist until one is realised. In Palestine, imperial pluralism gave way to nationalist partition and occupation; identities hardened, and external powers redrew the map according to their interests (Cleveland & Bunton, 2024; UNGA, 1947; Yale Law School, 1916, 1917).

1) The Ottoman Root

Under the Ottoman millet system, Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived within an unequal but plural legal framework. When that umbrella vanished after the First World War, Britain and France filled the vacuum. The Sykes–Picot Agreement divided Ottoman lands into spheres, and the Balfour Declaration supported a Jewish national home while promising not to prejudice the rights of existing non-Jewish communities (Yale Law School, 1916, 1917).

2) From Mandate to Partition to Occupation

The British Mandate preserved aspects of Ottoman administration but inverted the political logic, catalysing Arab and Jewish national movements. The United Nations later endorsed partition in Resolution 181, accelerating a path toward war and long-term displacement (UNGA, 1947; Cleveland & Bunton, 2024). Ottoman land records still recur in disputes, a reminder that empire’s paperwork remains active evidence in the present.

3) The Parallel Case: Russia’s Imperial Successor

The 1991 dissolution of the USSR echoed Ottoman dynamics: multi-ethnic empire, ambiguous borders, minorities outside new states. NATO enlargement recast the security field and sharpened Russian threat perceptions, producing a frontier of chronic insecurity (NATO, 2024). As with Palestine, historical claims and contemporary security narratives collide with international law and power politics (International Criminal Court, 2023).

4) History as a Multiverse of Probabilities

Each junction — Sykes–Picot, Balfour, Partition, post-1967 policy — offered multiple possible futures. From within those moments, outcomes were uncertain. Decisions narrowed the field without eliminating uncertainty, much like observation collapsing a wave function. The 4D Dynamic Connectivity Model treats these as branching probability clouds that repeatedly collapse into realised sequences (Cleveland & Bunton, 2024).

5) Double Standards and External Power

Russia is sanctioned and isolated after annexations in Ukraine, while Israel’s occupation is condemned in principle but protected in practice by key allies. The asymmetry shows up in legal venues as well: the ICC issued arrest warrants in both situations (International Criminal Court, 2023; International Criminal Court, 2024), and the World Court has now advised that Israel must allow UN aid into Gaza and ensure basic needs are met (Reuters, 2025). The pattern reflects alliance structures more than neutral principle.

6) The Trump Variable: A New Uncertainty Node

Donald Trump’s re-entry adds a high-variance node to an already entangled system. Policy towards Israel–Palestine, NATO, and international courts may shift rapidly. Recent US measures targeting ICC officials show how great-power politics can re-weight legal processes and incentives across the field (U.S. Department of State, 2025). In probabilistic terms, this is a disturbance to the wave: multiple plausible futures coexist, and the actual outcome will only be known after observation resolves uncertainty.

7) The Living Wave of History

From Ottoman collapse to Soviet dissolution, from Partition to NATO enlargement, each decision re-entangles the global system. We do not predict a single future; we map probability flows. The Israel–Palestine and Russia–Ukraine crises are not anomalies. They are the latest collapses in a century-long superposition of outcomes. Until we address the structural inheritance of empire, we will keep reliving aftershocks rather than resolving the quake.

8) Conclusion

The collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and later of the Soviet Union, demonstrates that history behaves less like a line and more like a multidimensional field of probabilities. Each empire held diversity in suspension; its fall released competing forces that re-entangled the world in new configurations of power and identity. The resulting crises—from Gaza to Donbas—are not separate events but linked outcomes in a shared systemic chain.

Understanding this through the 4D Dynamic Connectivity Model helps us see that prediction is impossible in the strict sense: every decision, policy, or intervention is an observation that alters the field itself. Donald Trump’s renewed engagement in Middle Eastern and global policy represents the next observation point, one that could collapse the wave toward renewed conflict or an unexpected equilibrium. Only hindsight will reveal which branch of history we will inhabit.

---

References

1. Cleveland, W. L., & Bunton, M. (2024). A history of the modern Middle East (7th ed.). Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/A-History-of-the-Modern-Middle-East/Cleveland-Bunton/p/book/9780367516468
2. International Criminal Court. (2023, March 17). Situation in Ukraine: ICC judges issue arrest warrants against Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova. https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-ukraine-icc-judges-issue-arrest-warrants-against-vladimir-vladimirovich-putin-and
3. International Criminal Court. (2024, November 21). Situation in the State of Palestine: ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I rejects the State of Israel’s challenges to jurisdiction and issues warrants of arrest for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant. https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-rejects-state-israels-challenges
4. NATO. (2024, October 3). Topic: Enlargement and Article 10. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49212.htm
5. Reuters. (2025, October 22). World Court says Israel must allow U.N. aid to Gaza and ensure basic needs of Palestinians are met. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/world-court-give-opinion-israels-obligations-allow-aid-palestinians-2025-10-22/
6. U.S. Department of State. (2025, August 20). Imposing further sanctions in response to the ICC’s ongoing threat to Americans and Israelis. https://www.state.gov/releases/2025/08/imposing-further-sanctions-in-response-to-the-iccs-ongoing-threat-to-americans-and-israelis
7. United Nations General Assembly. (1947, November 29). Resolution 181 (II): Future government of Palestine. Security Council Report archive PDF. https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/A%20RES%20181%20%28II%29.pdf
8. Yale Law School. (1916). The Sykes–Picot Agreement. The Avalon Project. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/sykes.asp
9. Yale Law School. (1917). The Balfour Declaration. The Avalon Project. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/balfour.asp

About the author

J. André Faust writes The Connected Mind, an inquiry into the structural entanglements of politics, economics, and society. The guiding idea is simple: trace feedback, weigh probabilities, and revise beliefs in light of new evidence.

---

 

On the world stage, peace becomes performance — and every spotlight hides the shadows of control.

By J. André Faust | The Connected Mind | October 15, 2025

Update — CBC analysis (Oct 16, 2025)

CBC’s latest piece describes Trump’s Gaza deal as potentially “historic” yet cautions that it stops at a negative peace—a pause in violence—without a clear path to a negotiated, lasting settlement. Trump declined to commit to a two-state solution, and analysts note the plan largely reflects Israeli and U.S. priorities, with limited Palestinian voice. In short: headline peace, unresolved foundations.

Why it matters for this essay: this directly reinforces the theme of performative peace—high-visibility wins in Phase 1 with structural questions left open, increasing the risk of later fracture.

Source: Nahlah Ayed, CBC News, “Trump’s Gaza deal may be ‘historic,’ but falls short of delivering ‘dawn of a new Middle East’,” posted Oct 16, 2025 (updated 12:47 PM ADT).

When Peace Becomes a Performance: Trump, Netanyahu, and the Architecture of Escape

The Gaza ceasefire agreement, publicly described as a step toward peace, contains within it a series of conditions that appear designed to collapse under their own weight. Among the most striking features are the impossible demands: the return of all hostages, living and dead; Hamas’s total disarmament; and an implicit assumption that a shattered territory can deliver complete compliance under bombardment. At the centre of this fragile structure stand two dominant figures — Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu — whose political and strategic interests have become increasingly intertwined. To analyse their alignment without slipping into speculation, this post focuses on strategy, evidence and verification.

1. Convergence of interests

Trump’s domestic narrative casts him as the deal-maker who achieves results where traditional diplomacy fails; Netanyahu’s depends on demonstrating that Israel remains strong, unbending, and protected by Washington’s approval (CNN, 2025). Both face internal pressures that reward toughness over compromise, which helps explain why their language and sequencing converge.

2. Narrative synchronisation as political instrument

Modern conflicts are fought with words as well as weapons. Press conferences, photo-ops and carefully sequenced “points of agreement” serve as instruments of narrative control. In this context, the widely discussed “twenty points” function both as negotiation terms and as a communication script (Reuters, 2025). Each clause reinforces a moral hierarchy — Israel as the disciplined actor, Hamas as the unreliable counterpart — a framing reinforced by disputes over recovered remains (Associated Press, 2025).

3. The optics of ownership: Trump’s first word

A revealing CBC segment documented a handwritten note passed to Trump during a domestic round-table: “Very close. We need you to approve a Truth Social post soon so you can announce the deal first” (CBC, 2025). Minutes later he signalled an imminent deal; within hours, his post appeared. Communication scholars call this narrative capture — controlling the headline rather than the outcome (Entman, 1993). The footage shows media choreography in action: the announcement itself is part of the performance.

4. The propaganda parallel

Describing this as “propaganda-like” need not imply deceit. In communication theory, propaganda is deliberate perception-shaping to achieve behavioural outcomes (Jowett & O’Donnell, 2019). One-sided or impossible conditions become rhetorical proof of restraint on one side and intransigence on the other; synchronised statements and timing create an echo chamber that amplifies the stronger party’s moral logic (Herman & Chomsky, 1988).

5. Avoiding the conspiratorial trap

Strategic analysis examines observable incentives and outcomes; conspiracy claims allege secret coordination beyond evidence. Messaging alignment between Washington and Jerusalem is verifiable — statements often mirror each other within hours, and close communication is acknowledged (The Guardian, 2025). What would cross the line is asserting a total hidden script without documentation.

6. Self-defeating design: why the agreement may collapse

Five dynamics make the framework structurally unstable: (1) Impossibility clauses such as the demand to return all bodies (Reuters, 2025); (2) Asymmetrical enforcement where one side can unilaterally decide compliance (ABC News, 2025); (3) Domestic incentives for toughness that discourage compromise (The Guardian, 2025); (4) a verification vacuum; and (5) a humanitarian feedback loop in which devastation itself becomes grounds for future non-compliance claims.

7. Interpreting behaviour, not allegiance

Treating each leader as a rational actor clarifies how the theatre of negotiation serves domestic objectives that may diverge from peacebuilding. This is not vilification; it is a study of how states convert negotiation into narrative.

8. Phase 1 and the architecture of escape

Phase 1 was designed as a self-contained, visible success: hostage releases, a short ceasefire and limited troop repositioning that can be credited quickly to presidential authority (CNN, 2025). By front-loading optics, a narrative victory is secured regardless of later collapse. In game-theory terms, the structure is non-zero but asymmetrical: Trump maximises gain in every outcome, while Israel and Hamas absorb risk. The agreement’s structure and its communication loop are entangled — each action is both procedure and performance. This is systemic entanglement: governance mechanisms blending with perception mechanisms to create a recursive information loop.

Conclusion: the peace that performs itself

The ceasefire’s logic is self-contradictory: it demands total compliance from a devastated region while granting wide discretion to its guarantors. The very qualities that make it politically valuable — moral clarity, unilateral control and domestic resonance — make it operationally fragile. Whether the Trump–Netanyahu alignment is deliberate or emergent matters less than the outcome: a system that performs the ritual of peace while perpetuating structures of conflict.

About the author

J.  André Faust examines the structural entanglements of politics, economics and society. He explores how single moments, from a lone act of violence to a policy choice, can unfold into decades of social and cultural change.

His approach treats reality like a layered 3D model. Systems overlap, interact and sometimes obscure one another. Forecasts are provisional; hidden layers and feedback loops are often still at work.

Guiding idea: understand connections, trace feedback and revise beliefs as new layers come into view.

---

References

1. ABC News. (2025, October 15). Israel says ceasefire deal contingent on full return of hostages.
2. Associated Press. (2025, October 14). Israeli military says one of the bodies handed over by Hamas is not that of a hostage.
3. CBC News [Chang, A.]. (2025, October 12). How Trump’s ‘first word’ defined the Middle East peace announcement.
4. CNN [Tapper, J.]. (2025, October 15). Trump tells CNN that Israeli forces could resume fighting in Gaza if Hamas doesn’t uphold ceasefire deal.
5. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.
6. Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon Books.
7. Jowett, G. S., & O’Donnell, V. (2019). Propaganda & Persuasion (7th ed.). Sage Publications.
8. Reuters. (2025, October 14). Returning hostage bodies from Gaza may take time, Red Cross says.
9. The Guardian. (2025, October 15). Trump and Netanyahu’s alignment strengthens as Gaza deal faces hurdles.

---

The Integration Trap: How Global Economics Locked Us Into Climate Collapse

By J. André Faust (Sept 06, 2025)

1. The Personal Paradox

Most of us are trapped in a contradiction. To survive, we must earn money. To earn money, we must participate in an economy that accelerates the destruction of the environment that keeps us alive. I see this contradiction every day. If I stopped working to focus full time on writing and producing the kind of intellectual content that could help others see the big picture, I could not pay for food, shelter, or electricity.

Every paycheck, every purchase, every click on a digital ad connects me to the same global web that is heating the oceans, thinning the ice caps, and releasing ancient gases from the permafrost. It is not hypocrisy; it is structure. The system demands participation. Refusal comes at the cost of survival.

2. Geoeconomics: Power in the Age of Interdependence

We often talk about the global economy as though it were a neutral machine. In truth, it is a geopolitical battlefield disguised as a marketplace. Nations use trade, energy, and technology to pursue power under the banner of prosperity.

Each country competes for advantage: cheaper labor, cheaper energy, looser environmental laws. Every ton of carbon burned to sustain that competition becomes another contribution to the planetary debt. Even when governments promise cooperation, the incentives push toward self-interest. The result is a global race where everyone speeds up while pretending to brake.

3. Climate Feedback: The Planet Mirrors the Market

The Earth’s climate behaves much like the global market; it amplifies what it receives. When emissions rise, warming accelerates. When ice melts, reflectivity drops and more heat is absorbed. When permafrost thaws, methane escapes, trapping even more heat.

Economics follows the same feedback logic. When profits rise, investment accelerates. When consumption expands, industries grow. When debt fuels spending, growth becomes mandatory just to keep balance sheets alive. Both systems are self-reinforcing loops, and both now run beyond the point where simple adjustments can restore equilibrium. The climate is not our opponent; it is our mirror.

4. Complexity at Diminishing Returns

Anthropologist Joseph Tainter described how civilizations collapse when the costs of complexity exceed the benefits. In modern terms, our complexity is the global economic machine itself: supply chains, data networks, financial derivatives, multinational regulations. Every time we add a new layer to solve a problem, we create new vulnerabilities that require still more layers to manage.

Each summit, each climate accord, each innovation adds more structure without reducing the total stress on the planet. The energy required to maintain this complexity—both literal and political—keeps rising. The returns keep shrinking. Collapse, in Tainter’s sense, is not moral failure. It is an energy imbalance that can no longer be paid for.

5. The Lost Capacity for Collective Action

For any hope of reversal, the world would need unified effort: shared technology, synchronized energy transitions, and transparent resource management. But the geopolitical environment rewards fragmentation, not cooperation.

Tariffs on green technologies, competition over critical minerals, and rival energy blocs reflect a deeper truth: the system’s self-preservation instinct now overrides the planet’s. The same logic that drives corporations to maximize quarterly profits drives nations to prioritize GDP over stability. When cooperation becomes politically impossible, the window for reversal closes. The tipping point is no longer just environmental; it is institutional. The global economy has become too self-interested to save itself.

6. The Human Dilemma

Here is where it turns personal again. Knowing all this does not free me from it. Like billions of others, I am bound to a currency system that values growth more than life. Even the act of writing about collapse depends on electricity, servers, and manufactured devices—processes sustained by the very machinery I critique.

This is the emotional cost of awareness: understanding that every solution still draws from the same finite pool of energy and materials. There is no clean exit, only degrees of participation.

7. What Remains Possible

Perhaps the goal is not salvation but clarity. We can still choose honesty over illusion, cooperation over denial, and resilience over blind optimism. Local economies, cultural memory, and intellectual integrity become forms of resistance when global systems refuse correction.

We may not stop the collapse, but we can shape how consciously we experience it. Every act of truth-telling slows the descent a little and preserves knowledge for whatever comes next.

8. Closing Reflection

Civilizations do not fall because people stop caring. They fall when caring is no longer profitable. The integration that once made us powerful now binds us to the consequences of our own design. The global economy, the climate system, and human survival have merged into a single equation whose solution we can no longer balance.

We are living within that equation—each of us an input, each of us a signal echoing through the system we built. Understanding that is not despair; it is the beginning of wisdom.

9. What Game Theory Has to Say

From a game-theory perspective, the climate crisis behaves like a global Prisoner’s Dilemma. Each nation knows that cooperation—cutting emissions, sharing technology, and limiting extraction—would benefit everyone in the long run. Yet the fear of losing competitive advantage makes defection the safer short-term choice. The result is a rational race toward collective ruin.

In game-theory terms, the global economy is locked in a non-cooperative equilibrium where each player pursues individual gain, even while knowing that mutual restraint would yield a higher collective payoff. The system rewards exploitation over preservation, competition over trust, and growth over equilibrium.

Economists and political theorists call this a coordination failure, but in deeper terms it reveals a civilization unable to rewrite its own rules. Collapse, therefore, is not only a physical or economic event; it is the logical outcome of the strategies that once made us successful. The tragedy is not that humanity is irrational, but that our rationality now serves the wrong game.

For readers interested in cooperative strategies and the mathematics of coordination, classic works in game theory explore how trust, reciprocity, and reputation can stabilize systems that would otherwise self-destruct. These ideas will be central to any future rethinking of global governance.

---

References

Tainter, J. A. (1988). The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge University Press.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2023). Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/

Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The Limits to Growth. Universe Books.

Smil, V. (2017). Energy and Civilization: A History. MIT Press.

Jackson, T. (2017). Prosperity Without Growth: Foundations for the Economy of Tomorrow. Routledge.

Axelrod, R. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books.

Schelling, T. C. (1960). The Strategy of Conflict. Harvard University Press.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.

About the author

J. André Faust examines the structural entanglements of politics, economics, and society. He explores how single moments, from a lone act of violence to a policy choice, can unfold into decades of social and cultural change.

His approach treats reality like a layered 3D model. Systems overlap, interact, and sometimes obscure one another. Forecasts are therefore provisional. When outcomes are hard to predict, it is often because hidden layers and feedback loops are still at work.

Guiding idea: understand connections, trace feedback, and revise beliefs as new layers come into view.

---

Selective Sympathy: Gaza, Ukraine, and the Media’s Blind Spot

Why Is Putin Demonized While Netanyahu Gets a Pass?

By J. André Faust (July 09, 2025)

In an age of instant information and moral posturing, one reality is hard to ignore: Vladimir Putin is relentlessly demonized in Western media for the war in Ukraine, while Benjamin Netanyahu largely escapes similar treatment for Israel’s actions in Gaza.

Yet if we compare civilian casualties, blockade-driven starvation, and infrastructure destruction, Netanyahu’s actions in Gaza have arguably caused more civilian suffering in a shorter period.

By the Numbers

• Ukraine (Feb 2022–Mid 2025): ~13,300 civilian deaths, 70,000–80,000+ military deaths, millions displaced.
• Gaza (Oct 2023–Mid 2025): ~57,000+ Palestinian deaths (majority civilians), tens of thousands wounded, famine and medical collapse due to blockade.

Framing: “Self-defense” vs. “Aggression”

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is framed as an illegal, aggressive war, justifying Western sanctions and unified condemnation.

Netanyahu’s war in Gaza is framed as “self-defense” against Hamas, with civilian casualties rationalized as Hamas’ fault, even as aid is blocked and starvation spreads.

Why the Double Standard?

1️⃣ Geopolitical Interests: Supporting Ukraine helps counter Russia, while supporting Israel aligns with Middle East influence and security alliances.
2️⃣ Media and Cultural Bias: Western media often mirrors government priorities, with deep cultural ties creating sympathy for Israel.
3️⃣ Legal Framing: Russia’s invasion clearly violates sovereignty; Israel claims self-defense under international law.
4️⃣ Economic and Strategic Factors: Israel’s tech, intelligence, and regional role align with Western interests.

Violence as a Means of Resource Control

As noted by Mises, Mills, and Strauss, violence has historically been the main way to acquire resources, control territory, and expand power. In both Ukraine and Gaza, violence is used to achieve political or territorial aims, yet the Western response differs.

What This Means for Us

It’s not about ignoring Hamas’ attacks or Russia’s invasion but about recognizing selective moral outrage. If tens of thousands die under Gaza’s bombardment with muted Western response while Ukraine’s suffering draws global condemnation, we must ask:

Are we truly committed to human rights and the value of civilian life, or only when it aligns with our interests?

Closing Thoughts

Selective moral blindness excuses violence when it suits us while condemning it when it does not. The people of Ukraine and Gaza both deserve consistent standards of justice, accountability, and empathy—without geopolitical double standards.

---

The Complexities of the Russia–Ukraine Conflict: Analyzing Propaganda, Identity, and Strategic Performance

Propaganda, Perception, and the Dangers of Assumption

 By J. André Faust (June 07, 2025)

I don't know what Zelenskyy was thinking when he authorized the use of stealth drones to attack Russian airfields. Strategically, yes, it was an audacious and calculated move, clearly planned well in advance. But it also had to be obvious that such a strike—targeting the pride of Russia’s long-range bomber fleet—would escalate the conflict dramatically. In war, strikes like these don’t just damage infrastructure; they strike at the heart of a nation’s dignity. Historically, when national pride is wounded, the response is rarely measured.

What makes this moment even more difficult to analyze is that it came just as Russia and Ukraine were reportedly engaged in prisoner exchanges, including the repatriation of the deceased, and were actively discussing a limited ceasefire framework. That context adds a strange duality: a step toward de-escalation on one front, and a direct provocation on another. It makes me wonder if we’re seeing one layer of reality, or just the version we’re meant to see.

Both Russia and Ukraine are clearly invested in propaganda. That much is undeniable. Each side has something to gain by shaping public perception, both domestically and internationally. And for those of us watching from the outside, trying to assess truth through that fog is no easy task.

Lately, I’ve even begun to question how authentic some diplomatic encounters are. Take the recent meeting between Zelenskyy and Donald Trump. Trump and Vance appeared condescending and dismissive, but Zelenskyy—former actor that he is—didn’t push back much at all. Was that real? Or was it a scripted performance designed to serve different narratives for different audiences? I know that sounds far-fetched, but when war and politics intersect with public theatre, performance becomes part of statecraft.

One area I find especially difficult to pin down is the actual proportion of pro-Russian separatists within Ukraine. The Western narrative emphasizes unity, and much of the polling does support that, but Russia claims to be protecting persecuted Russian speakers. The truth likely lies somewhere in between, but it's important to understand just how much that proportion has shifted.

Before 2014, there were sizable pro-Russia sympathies in parts of eastern Ukraine, especially in Donetsk and Luhansk. Some surveys from that time suggested that up to 25–30% of people in those regions supported separation or stronger ties with Russia. But that support declined sharply after the annexation of Crimea and the onset of war. In more recent years—particularly since the 2022 full-scale invasion—nationwide support for Ukrainian unity has soared. Today, over 80–90% of Ukrainians oppose territorial concessions, including many in formerly skeptical eastern regions. Even Russian-speaking Ukrainians have, in many cases, grown more pro-Ukraine due to the ongoing violence.

It’s tempting to draw a parallel with the Quebec independence movement, especially the "Oui/Non" referenda under René Lévesque. But that comparison only goes so far. Quebec’s debate was largely peaceful and democratic. Ukraine’s situation is defined by invasion, occupation, and military violence. What might have been a cultural or regional disagreement years ago has now become, for many Ukrainians, a matter of existential survival.

As I continue to follow this conflict, I remind myself constantly to watch for signs of confirmation bias. It's easy to see what you want to see, or what one side wants you to believe. But if we want to understand the deeper realities of this war, we have to question the narratives—on both sides—and pay attention not just to what’s being said, but what’s being left out.

---