False Peace Settlements - Chas Freeman
The Insider’s Judgment: Biography and Uncomfortable Truth
Chas Freeman belongs to a rare generation of American diplomats who understood foreign policy not as ideology, but as a craft. He served for decades in the U.S. Foreign Service — not as a public figure, but as a strategist, negotiator, and sober analyst of global power shifts.
Freeman served as U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, later became president of the Middle East Policy Council, and advised senior decision-makers during the Cold War and the turbulent decades that followed. He was directly involved in sensitive diplomatic engagements with China, the Middle East, and countries of the Global South.
💬 “Diplomacy does not fail because enemies are strong — it fails because illusions about power prevail.”What distinguishes Freeman from most contemporary commentators is his institutional experience. He understands how governments, intelligence services, and multilateral organizations think — from the inside. Today, he analyzes them with the distance of an insider who no longer has a career to protect.
His warnings are not directed at individual states, but at structural failures of Western foreign policy: moral double standards, strategic short-sightedness, and the growing instrumentalization of non-state actors for geopolitical objectives.
While Donald Trump delivers what Freeman describes as a “completely unhinged” campaign speech before the UN General Assembly, a former Al-Qaeda leader is celebrated in New York as a democrat — and almost no one seems to notice the irony.
The Illusion of Peace – Trump Carves Notches for the Nobel Prize
Everywhere, peace agreements are being discussed. But the reality is sobering: these are false settlements without substance.
Glenn Diesen begins with what appears to be an optimistic observation: from Ukraine to the Middle East, wars seem to be winding down or at least moving toward an end. Peace agreements are being proposed. Diplomacy between the Americans and the Russians has resumed, there are reports of a deal, Trump is said to have agreed. The Europeans are irritated because they were not included – yet they do not seem particularly eager to see the war actually end.
Chas Freeman dismantles this illusion with surgical precision: “It is too early to speak of this general picture of peace breaking out everywhere. These are false peace settlements. Donald Trump is carving notches for the Nobel Peace Prize – I assume he would like to visit you in Oslo.” The sobering reality: there is no peace between India and Pakistan, between Rwanda and the Congo, between Cambodia and Thailand – in fact, they are fighting again. And there is no peace in Ukraine.
The fundamental impossibility of the Trump approach:
- There could never be peace in Ukraine through Trump’s quasi-diplomatic process
- General Kellogg, a vocal supporter of Zelensky, no longer appears to be involved
- The Secretary of the Army and two four-star generals traveled to Kyiv – presumably to deliver hard truths
- The mysterious Russian denial of a meeting in Istanbul – everything is murky
Freeman makes it clear: what does appear evident is a shift in thinking in Washington regarding Ukraine. The United States and Russia seem to have found common ground: a division of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, the Crimea issue put on hold. But the Russians still do not control about 14 percent of Donetsk. They are currently advancing rapidly, the Ukrainian army is collapsing, and Zelensky is in serious trouble due to corruption issues and general war fatigue.
The Front Lines Are Collapsing – Thousands Die in Disorganized Retreats
The Russian advance is accelerating, the Ukrainian army is fragmenting, and with each passing day the chances for orderly withdrawals diminish.
The immediate situation at the front is desperate: defensive lines are breaking down at increasing speed, and the Russian advance is intensifying. They are moving forward far more rapidly – creating additional problems beyond territorial losses and logistical strain. Diesen describes the death spiral: thousands of Ukrainians are being killed or trapped in encirclements because the faster the Russians advance, the more chaotic the retreats become.
The vicious cycle of collapse:
- It becomes extremely difficult to evacuate cities once they are encircled
- Troops ultimately remain in position and cannot escape
- With these additional losses, morale continues to deteriorate
- There are fewer forces available to hold the front lines – everything begins to slide
The strategic consequence is clear: a Russian victory would be deeply unfavorable. If Russia is able to settle matters on its own terms, it could also become overconfident. It is therefore in everyone’s interest that the harsh conditions the Russians propose in a diplomatic settlement remain significantly better than what a full Russian victory would mean for Europeans, Ukrainians, and Americans. The incentive should exist now.
Freeman formulates the central question: how long will Zelensky remain in power – or, more precisely, in a position of power? It is unclear how much authority he actually exercises. And how long will Ukraine endure? When will it break? Its room for maneuver is narrowing rapidly. This may therefore be a moment – perhaps a favorable moment – for some form of understanding between the United States and Russia.
Europe’s Fractured Psyche – Between Cold War Conditioning and Panic
Virtually every major European country is burdened by weak governments and the absence of consensus – a continent without leadership.
Diesen confronts Freeman with the European riddle: the Europeans puzzle him, even though he is one of them. How can they resist so vehemently when there is no Plan B? Freeman’s diagnosis is devastating: “A lack of imagination, a lack of statecraft, a lack of leadership. Virtually every European country of consequence in this war has fractured politics, a very weak government, and no consensus.”
Several forces are at work in Europe:
- Cold War conditioning – the image of Russians as monsters – remains deeply embedded
- When there is no political program, nationalist support is mobilized through an external enemy
- European anxiety: Is American protection ending after 80 years?
- The fear: My God, we must face the Russians on our own
One might expect serious reflection on how to coexist with Russia – and some have indeed begun to think along those lines. Perhaps within a Eurasian rather than a purely European framework. Certain thinkers in France appear to be moving in that direction. But at this moment, the Europeans have no clear strategy. They have nothing concrete to offer.
The fundamental problem intensifies: beyond the corruption issue surrounding Zelensky – itself a structural obstacle to EU membership for whatever remains of Ukraine after this war – the Europeans have, in essence, been left on their own by the United States.
Von der Leyen’s Desperate Options – Seize Russian Assets or Pay the Bill Themselves
Europe faces two impossible choices: use confiscated Russian assets or spend money it does not have.
According to von der Leyen, the Europeans now have two options. First: issue a bond backed by the seized Russian assets. Freeman outlines the legal and political reality: the Belgians and others firmly reject this for legal reasons – and for very sound political ones. If you destroy the bank, the bank can no longer function. Such a move would be devastating for the international financial system and is therefore rightly opposed.
The alternative is no better:
- Provide the funds themselves – which they do not have
- No one in Europe wants to pay higher taxes to support Ukraine
- Much rhetoric about fighting, essentially to the last Ukrainian
- But no action follows the words
Freeman draws the conclusion: under normal circumstances, he would argue that the Europeans should of course be part of any dialogue on Ukraine. But under the present conditions, they have not qualified themselves for that role. The most vehemently anti-Russian country is the United Kingdom. Likely since the Crimean War, it has demonized the Russians. Anti-Russian behavior has been treated as essential to its “special relationship” – which today is neither particularly special nor truly a relationship with the United States.
Many factors have converged to produce a stalemate, inertia, and – to borrow a phrase from Macron – brain death.
The Lesson of History – Without Russia, There Is No Peace in Europe
History shows: every European great power must be at the table, or peace will not endure.
Diesen deepens the historical perspective: the entire European project after the end of the Cold War was built on the idea that this “Game of Thrones” struggle for dominance would no longer define the continent. Instead of defeating rivals in Europe, the goal was to learn how to coexist. And above all, that meant learning how to live with Russia – which, incidentally, possesses the largest territory, the largest population, the largest army, and the greatest nuclear capacity on the continent.
Freeman emphasizes the fundamental lesson: “History teaches – or should teach – Europeans that without the inclusion of every European great power in a system designed to preserve peace, that peace cannot be sustained.” The exclusion of both Germany and the Soviet Union from European institutions after the First World War had tragic consequences.
The historical record is clear:
- Incorporating France into the European framework after the Napoleonic Wars – success
- Integrating Germany into the Western alliance after the Second World War – success
- Permanently weakening Germany after the First World War – catastrophe
- The lesson: peace through an inclusive security architecture
Yet after the Cold War, a new logic emerged. Peace would no longer be built through inclusive security structures. Instead, because peace was believed to flow from democracy, the solution became inter-democratic security institutions. NATO and the European Union – grounded in liberal democratic identity. Other countries need not participate, because we are a force for good. And if one defines oneself as a force for good, then including non-liberal democracies appears incompatible with that identity.
The Intellectual Error – Europe as “Everything Except Russia”
The definition that ultimately prevailed was “everything except Russia” – a concept that fueled NATO expansion and proved tragically flawed.
Freeman reflects on his own role in this development: “I believe I may actually have contributed to promoting this mistake.” When he became Assistant Secretary of Defense, he asked himself: if NATO is the answer, what was the question? The question was whether Europe should have an inclusive security structure – and what the logical foundation for such a structure would be. The conclusion reached at the time: NATO was that foundation.
The flawed logic of the 1990s:
- Let us expand NATO, at least through the Partnership for Peace
- Let us engage Russia via the NATO–Russia Council
- This attempt might have led somewhere constructive
- But it was overtaken by triumphalism and lingering Cold War extremism
After the Cold War ended, the question arose: what actually is Europe? There was already a structure, the OSCE, which included Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan as part of Europe. Clearly, they were not. So an effort was made to define Europe more precisely. The definition that took hold was: “everything except Russia.” That concept drove NATO expansion.
It stood in contrast to the competing vision of a Europe that encompassed the whole continent – including Russia. A vision that Charles de Gaulle would certainly have supported, as his idea of Europe extended at least to the Urals. Freeman concedes: “Yes, I think there was an intellectual, ideological – if you want to call it that – element in this mistake.”
Gaza – The Most Shameful Moment of the UN Security Council
The Gaza plan is not a peace initiative but a neo-colonial undertaking that no one is willing to support.
Diesen turns to the Middle East: in Gaza, an international peacekeeping force has allegedly been authorized by the United Nations. It has been criticized as imperial or colonial in nature, since Gaza would effectively be governed from the outside. What are the conditions, and how likely is it that such a mission could achieve its stated objectives?
Freeman immediately corrects the premise: “You said they are going to set it up. They are not setting it up. No one will join such a force if its purpose is to obstruct Palestinian self-determination and consolidate Israeli control over Gaza – which is precisely what a resolution based on the Trump plan would do.”
The reality of the Gaza “peace initiative”:
- No one in the Arab world will finance reconstruction without a Palestinian state
- No one will risk the lives of their soldiers fighting Hamas
- Hamas has stated it will not disarm – which is rational, since doing so would be suicidal
- We have seen what happens to those who make agreements with the Israelis
Freeman is unequivocal: the Israelis do not uphold agreements, and they will not uphold this one either. There is now discussion of further dividing Gaza – along the so-called yellow line. The Israelis maintain full control behind that line, while other parts of Gaza remain effectively under Hamas governance, which has reasserted itself following the reduction of Israeli attacks.
Hamas, however, has been unable to defend Gaza since the so-called peace plan was approved by the Israelis. More than 1,500 buildings in Gaza have reportedly been destroyed – it is remarkable that any structures remain standing. Hundreds of people have been killed, including, as is often the case, roughly half of them children.
The False Ceasefire – There Is No Peace, Only Fewer Bombings
Israel continues to strike, Hamas observes the ceasefire – yet only one side is held accountable.
Freeman poses the fundamental question: “Is there a ceasefire in Gaza? Really – tell that to the people in Gaza.” The situation increasingly resembles the so-called peace process that lingered in public discourse for years after it had effectively ceased to exist.
Freeman’s devastating assessment:
- This is a shameful moment for the United Nations Security Council
- Both the Chinese and the Russians understood that this plan would end in embarrassment
- Not only for the UN, but also for the United States
Why interrupt a process in which the United States is preparing itself for a major failure?
There will be no Trump Tower in Gaza City, and there will be no Nobel Peace Prize for something that is not peace at all. This is an attempt to pacify Gaza – something the Israelis have not achieved militarily. Now there appears to be hope that, with American backing and under a UN umbrella, it can be achieved through non-military means. That is unlikely to succeed.
This is merely another episode in a long history of ethnic cleansing, mass violence, and war conducted by the Israeli state. The final point: it also represents a return to the League of Nations mandate system. A neo-colonial project. Tony Blair or Donald Trump – or anyone except a Palestinian – is envisioned to administer Gaza with the assistance of Palestinian collaborators.
The Reality Behind the Scenes – “Kiss the Hand You Cannot Bite”
Arab pledges are often not meant seriously – an old strategy that Europe is now also applying.
Freeman explains why the Chinese and Russians did not veto: “First of all, for reasons of expediency, it had been approved by the Palestinian Authority and various other Arab actors. Some were opposed, but there was no Arab consensus against it. People had obediently agreed to Trump. They didn’t want to upset him, so they went along.”
Freeman recalls a personal experience: when he succeeded George McGovern as chairman of the Middle East Policy Council, there was a Gulf Cooperation Council meeting in Doha. All members agreed to contribute $2 million each to a joint fund. When he tried to collect the money, the response was sobering.
The reality of Arab “pledges”:
- Freeman: “You pledged that money, didn’t you?” – “Oh yes, we did.”
- “Did you actually provide it?” – “Oh no, we didn’t really mean what we said.”
- This is not a new game – the Arab proverb: “Kiss the hand you cannot bite.”
- That is exactly what is happening here – it is all deception.
Diesen observes that many of these pledges – since the Europeans are doing something similar, promising to buy massive amounts of American weapons and make huge investments in the U.S. – seem to involve money we don’t really have. Are they following the same Arab logic? Freeman replies: “Apparently, it is a very valuable hedging strategy to appease Trump.”
Trump’s Decline – The Epstein Files and a Shrinking Base
Revelations about Trump are mounting, his evangelical base is eroding, and tariffs are driving inflation.
Freeman turns to domestic problems: “I have to say now that President Trump is in political trouble in the United States. More and more is coming to light in the Epstein files, including some truly repulsive reports about his involvement with, essentially, not even fully teenaged or barely adolescent girls.”
Trump’s waning authority:
- A large portion of his following: evangelical Christians
- They had apparently been willing to overlook his rather un-Christian behavior
- But he is in trouble – his own base is shrinking
- The tariff issue: he had to roll back tariffs on food
Tariffs are driving inflation – as everyone except him understood. Rising prices frustrate consumers. In the United States, there is an increase in defaults on electricity and other utility bills. People have no disposable income to manage both the rising cost of essentials and their own housing expenses. This is not a scenario in which Trump’s authority is strengthened – quite the opposite.
Freeman notes a troubling observation: Trump appears to be declining both mentally and physically. There is a very compelling analysis by a brilliant psychologist, Dr. John Gardner, available on YouTube. The analysis is highly detailed and factual; Dr. Gardner is not speculating. The impracticality of many aspects of Trump’s program is now beginning to catch up with him.
The Fall of the Messiah – From the Greatest Underdog Story to Collapse
From a triumphant electoral victory with messianic claims to domestic catastrophe – and allies selling him false victories.
Diesen reflects: “This fall of his – it must be pretty traumatic for anyone. The election victory he achieved was like the greatest underdog story ever. The way he was removed from power and then returned so forcefully. He even survived an assassination attempt, which for some of his supporters almost granted him a messianic status.”
The logic of decline:
- When facing all these domestic problems, political leaders seek foreign-policy wins
- This is the moment when allies will sell Trump false victories
- He will be very happy to buy into those false victories
- He can appear on the international stage as a major mover and shaker
Diesen observes: “A win-win situation – except, of course, for the rest of the world.” Freeman responds with Aristotle’s grim view of democracy: “He basically said that democracy inevitably leads to demagoguery, and demagoguery leads to tyranny. For roughly 250 years we have provided a compelling counterexample, but now it seems we are confirming Aristotle’s theory.”
Israel as a Source of Instability – Not Iran, but the Jewish State
It is becoming increasingly clear to the world: Israel, not Iran, is the destabilizing force in West Asia.
Freeman corrects the assumption about the ceasefire: “Hamas, in Israeli terminology, simply means any Palestinian nationalist. And by the way, Hamas is observing the ceasefire. Israel is provoking, not responding to Hamas violations. So there is only one side upholding the ceasefire, and it is not Israel.”
The reality of Israeli expansion:
- The United States has established a base on the edge of the Gaza Strip
- From there, it apparently directs many of Israel’s actions
- Nationalist Israelis are outraged – Israel is putting its sovereignty at risk
- There is a crisis in U.S.–Israel relations
Freeman finds it remarkable: “One would think a crisis could arise over genocide, but instead it happens because of U.S. efforts to manage activities that are part of the genocide. So this is a very depressing situation.”
Netanyahu pursues a vision shared by many of his quasi-fascist, religious, messianic cabinet members – an Israel extending far beyond the borders of Palestine. Israel is a remarkable state: it has no fixed borders. Normally, to recognize a state, one must know where its borders lie. Israel has none. It expands wherever it can.
Taiwan – The Endgame Begins and No One Can Find a Way Out
Xi Jinping aims to make history, Japan is intervening, and China is being pushed into a position with no possibility of retreat.
Freeman turns to the most dangerous development: the Chinese are in the midst of a major confrontation with Japan. They have positioned themselves to essentially demand the resignation of Prime Minister Takeuchi. No exit has been left for her. They insist that she retract her statement claiming Taiwan is, strategically, essentially part of Japan and that a war over Taiwan would justify Japan’s intervention.
The fundamental Chinese position:
- The Chinese have said: no, we must reject this
- Taiwan is part of China – a political matter among the Chinese themselves
- The question is how Taiwan relates to the rest of China
- Foreigners should not intervene – especially not the Japanese
The Japanese occupied Taiwan for 50 years, from 1895 to 1945. They administered Taiwan in a way that, unlike Korea where resentment toward Japan is strong, led people in Taiwan to assimilate, begin identifying as Japanese, and develop favorable feelings toward Japan. Some Japanese share the same sentiment, including Takeuchi, who has spoken relatively openly in the past and is close to Taiwan. This creates a serious dilemma for Japanese politicians.
There was a reckless statement from the Chinese Consul General in Kobe, Osaka, apparently threatening Takeuchi with beheading. This poured fuel on the fire and made it impossible for Takeuchi to retract her statements. We are now facing a confrontation with no exit.
China Mobilizes – The United Front Policy Distinguishes Patriots from Traitors
China is preparing for a possible Taiwan operation and classifies Taiwanese as patriots or traitors.
Freeman explains the dynamic: this unfolds as China mobilizes – essentially preparing for a potential operation against Taiwan. Its United Front policy is being adjusted to distinguish so-called patriots in Taiwan, those who support reunification, from traitors, those who do not. In Beijing’s eyes, this marks the beginning of an endgame for Taiwan.
The two imperatives of the Taiwan question from the Chinese perspective:
- First: end the civil war – prolonged by American intervention in 1950
- Second: remove the last remaining foreign forces and spheres of influence from Chinese territory
- This represents a fundamental challenge to the purpose of both Chinese revolutions
- Both the 1911 revolution and the 1949 communist revolution pursued nationalist agendas
Adding to this is the prospect that Xi Jinping may not secure a third term and seeks to enter Chinese history as a major figure by ending the civil war and removing foreign influence from Chinese territory. Enter Takeuchi, asserting once again a form of foreign influence that was eliminated in 1945. The situation is highly explosive.
The Simulation of War – No One Wants It, but No One Can Avoid It
A war simulation at Columbia University shows: no side wants a Taiwan war, but it is nearly impossible to prevent.
Diesen shares his experience: “A few weeks ago, I was at Columbia University in New York with Jeffrey Sachs, and we conducted a simulation of a potential war over Taiwan. What struck me was how interesting it is that none of the parties actually want this war, yet it is still incredibly difficult to avoid.”
Freeman responds with a historical analogy: “It’s like the Sarajevo assassination. Essentially – borrowing the title of a very good film – you have a house full of dynamite, and the fuse is ready to be lit.”
The technological reality is underestimated:
- Many imagine that technology hasn’t advanced since the Normandy landings
- Not an amphibious landing, but a helicopter assault combined with an internal uprising
- This is far more dangerous than most people realize
- It is unhelpful when Europeans issue concerned statements without the capability to act
Freeman quotes the proverb: “Never miss an opportunity to say nothing.” It seems that a common pattern in Europe is: the weaker or less capable they are of taking real action, the more they compensate with highly aggressive rhetoric.
The Busan Meeting – The G2 as Equals and the One-Year Ceasefire
For the first time, the U.S. and China met as equals – but the ceasefire is vague and prone to escalation.
Diesen returns to the fundamental question: many Chinese perceive tensions with the United States – similar to Russia and the Middle East – as lacking any genuine drive for peace. Instead, the sentiment seems to be that the other side is merely seeking a temporary solution to regroup before returning to the front. Does Freeman see any possibility for the U.S. and China to reshape their relationship?
Freeman responds: “Yes, I think perhaps the foundation for a new status quo – or maybe even the new status quo itself – was established at the Busan meeting between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping.”
The new status quo:
- This was the first meeting in which they clearly appeared as equals
- Donald Trump is fascinated by hierarchy and power – he called it the G2
- A concept rejected by everyone over the past ten years
- They acknowledged that they were in confrontation – that is the status quo
They agreed on a one-year ceasefire – or rather, they tried to negotiate one. Following the pattern of other ceasefires arranged by Donald Trump – very vague, with no details, everything still open. Therefore, it is highly likely that the situation will escalate, as friction is inevitable.
Rare Earths – China’s Strategic Weapon and America’s Illusion
China has halted the supply of rare earths to military end-users – the U.S. will take years to build alternatives.
Freeman explains the logic: if China is preparing the endgame regarding Taiwan, it means they will eventually make Taiwan an offer it cannot refuse. In that context, it makes no sense to continue supplying rare earths for the production of American weapons.
The reality of rare earths:
- China has removed global controls that were applied extraterritorially
- This regulation was suspended for one year
- But the ban on shipments to military end-users remains
Freeman: “I don’t think there will be any agreement that renews deliveries to the Pentagon.”
Treasury Secretary Besant says they will have an agreement by Thanksgiving. Freeman is highly skeptical. Europe is also a player but does not handle the matter particularly skillfully. We are looking at a period of four to five years before alternative supply chains can be developed and the capability to process these rare earths can be established. In the meantime, something must be done.
Besant suggests the U.S. could build its own rare earth supply chains within a year. Freeman finds this overly optimistic, considering that Besant just said in the previous sentence that it took the Chinese 25 years to reach their leadership position.
The Strategic Mistake from 25 Years Ago – “We’re Not Interested”
A quarter-century ago, the Pentagon passed up the opportunity to build its own rare earth processing capabilities.
Freeman recalls: “About 25 years ago, I was at the Pentagon with a friend, and we presented a process for processing rare earths. But they said, ‘No, we’re not interested. We’ll sell our stockpiles. We can buy it on the market.’ That was a strategic mistake of grave proportions, and I suspect Europe made the same one.”
China’s rare earth strategy:
- Mining is ecologically problematic – very environmentally damaging
- China wanted to stop uncontrolled mining and centralize control
- They had two motives: reduce environmental damage, prevent smuggling to Japan
- To their pleasant surprise, they realized they held Japan strategically in their hand
The world interpreted their actions as geopolitically motivated, which originally they were not. Yet they learned it could be extremely effective geopolitically – and they acted on it. Rare earths are not actually that rare – processing them is the complicated part.
Now we see the United States and others scrambling to identify sources – maps of Kazakhstan marking every deposit, new relationships in Central Asia. But Freeman makes it clear: “There is no immediate solution for this, regardless of Mr. Besant. I understand this a little, and he is simply completely wrong.”
The Final Reckoning – A Status Quo of Tensions and Impending Confrontations
The new status quo is not peace, but a drumbeat toward confrontation between Chinese nationalism and American hubris.
Freeman summarizes the new reality: “Perhaps that is true, but it is a status quo in which tensions persist and a drumbeat leads toward a confrontation between Chinese nationalism and American hubris.”
The overall tally of false peace deals:
- Ukraine: Frontlines collapsing, Zelensky’s power waning, Europe has no options
- Gaza: No ceasefire, Israel expanding, no one willing to join the peace force
- Taiwan: China mobilizing, Japan drawn in, no one finds a way out
- U.S.-China: One-year ceasefire without details – escalation likely
Europe is trapped between Cold War conditioning and panic – fractured politics, very weak governments, no consensus. A lack of imagination, a lack of statesmanship, a lack of leadership. History teaches that without including every European great power, peace cannot be maintained. Yet the definition that prevailed after the Cold War was “everything except Russia.”
Trump is in political trouble – Epstein revelations, shrinking base, tariffs causing inflation. With all these domestic problems, political leaders look for foreign-policy victories. That is the moment when allies will sell Trump false victories. Aristotle’s theory seems confirmed: democracy inevitably leads to demagoguery, and demagoguery to tyranny.
Geopolitical upheavals in the Middle East:
- The world has realized: the source of instability is Israel, not Iran
- The Saudi-Pakistani defense agreement brings Chinese technology
- Israel expands – no fixed borders, wherever it can
- Gaza continues to be divided – Hamas respects the ceasefire, Israel does not
Freeman closes with grim reality: The United States and others are frantically trying to identify sources of rare earths. But there is no immediate solution. We are talking about four to five years before alternative supply chains can be developed. China is preparing the endgame in Taiwan. Japan is drawn in. It is like the Sarajevo assassination – a house full of dynamite, and the fuse is ready.
The Columbia University simulation showed: none of the parties want this war over Taiwan, yet it is incredibly difficult to avoid. The technology for an amphibious landing – or a helicopter assault combined with an internal uprising – is far more dangerous than most people realize.
The False Peace Deals Reveal Their True Nature:
- Trump marks off strokes for the Nobel Peace Prize – but there is no peace
- Gaza: just one episode in a long history of ethnic cleansing and genocide
- Ukraine: the logical step would be to talk with the Russians – but they don’t
- Taiwan: Xi Jinping wants to go down in history as a great figure – the endgame begins
Freeman hopes the Chinese are merely pessimistic. He speaks on grim topics – but the reality is bleak. There is no genuine drive for peace or for creating a new, mutually acceptable status quo. Instead: temporary solutions, economic ceasefires, pauses to regroup before returning to the front.
The Busan meeting between Trump and Xi Jinping – the first as equals – may have laid the groundwork for a new status quo. But it is a status quo of tensions. A drumbeat leads toward confrontation between Chinese nationalism and American hubris. The one-year ceasefires are vague, without details, everything still open. Friction is inevitable. The situation will escalate.
The Final Warning:
- Europe compensates for weakness with aggressive rhetoric – but lacks the ability to act
- “Never miss an opportunity to say nothing” – yet Europeans fail to follow this wisdom
- The Japanese gave Taiwan a sphere of influence that was eliminated in 1945
- China cannot accept Taiwan once again being strategically under Japan
Freeman had asked: “The last thing the Chinese want in the world is that. But they are being pushed into a position where they cannot accept Taiwan once again being strategically under Japan.” A fundamental challenge. An explosive situation. Freeman does not know how it will unfold.
The Arab pledge – “Kiss the hand you cannot bite” – apparently applies to Europe toward Trump as well. Promises to buy lots of American weapons and make huge investments in the U.S. – money we don’t actually have. Von der Leyen faces two options: seize Russian assets or pay herself. But no one in Europe wants higher taxes to help Ukraine. Much rhetoric about fighting to the last Ukrainian – but no action follows.
History teaches Europeans that without including every European great power, peace cannot be maintained. Excluding Germany and the Soviet Union after World War I had tragic consequences. But the post-Cold War definition was: “Everything except Russia.” Freeman admits he actually played a role in promoting this error. He asked himself: If NATO is the answer, what was the question? Tragically mistaken.
Thank you, Chas Freeman.
Sources & Geopolitical References
Substack – US-Edition
This article is also available as a English-language edition on Substack:
False Peace Settlements and the Catastrophes Ahead - Chas Freeman
Original conversation (video)
YouTube-Interview:
Fake Peace, Political Collapse & Major Wars - Chas Freeman
Support Independent Journalism
If you find my work valuable, you can support it with a voluntary contribution here:
Voluntary support via PayPal
Voluntary support via Buy Me a Coffee
Many thanks for your support!
More Articles
How America’s Economic War on Russia - Richard Wolff
An Indictment of 80 Years of Vassal Politics - Larry Johnson
America’s New Imperialism - John Mearsheimer
investigative commentary.