Showing posts sorted by date for query JAMESTOWN. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query JAMESTOWN. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Monday, December 29, 2025

Dubai: The Emerging Financial Mecca – Analysis


December 29, 2025 
By Richard Rousseau


Throughout history, cities have attracted investors, artists, entrepreneurs, and wealthy individuals from beyond their native countries and regions. The Hanseatic cities of the 13th and 14th centuries, for example, were at the heart of the revival of trade at the end of the Middle Ages. They were also places where more freedom reigned. Genoa and Bruges took up the mantle from the 15th century onward. Starting in the 17th century, Geneva and Switzerland became popular destinations because of their freedom and security.

Beirut, in the Middle East, acquired the status of a financial center and a meeting point of cultures in the 1960s and ’70s. Starting in the 1980s, Singapore also played a key role as an economic and financial magnet in Asia. In recent years, Dubai and the United Arab Emirates have emerged as preferred destinations for investing and securing capital.
New global financial hub

In less than fifty years, Dubai has transformed from a regional trading port into one of the world’s most dynamic financial centers. It is now the leading financial center in the Middle East, surpassing Bahrain and Riyadh. This financial shift began in the 1990s and was solidified by the establishment of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) in 2004. The DIFC is an offshore financial zone that operates under Anglo-Saxon law and is independent of the local legal system.

Dubai enjoys a stable political system and maintains excellent relations with the United States, Europe, China, and Russia. It is renowned for its high level of internal security and low crime rate. Its tax regime is competitive, offering no income tax, a moderate corporate tax rate of 9%, and total exemption within the DIFC zone. Thanks to these advantages, Dubai attracts wealthy individuals from the Gulf, India, Pakistan, and Africa, as well as Russian and Chinese families and, increasingly, European families. Privacy, the legal stability of the DIFC, and low corporate taxes further fuel this growth.

According to the British immigration consultancy Henley & Partners, the UAE has been top destination for high-net-worth individuals in 2025, with an anticipated 9,800 arrivals representing $63 billion in assets. This surpasses the United States (7,500 arrivals totaling $43.7 billion) and Switzerland (3,000 arrivals totaling $16.8 billion), putting the UAE far ahead of Singapore and Hong Kong. Over 130,500 millionaires have already settled in the UAE, including 81,000 in Dubai. Among them are 28 billionaires, which is a 98% increase from ten years ago.

For instance, Dubai is expected to surpass Paris, which has 160,100 millionaires and 22 billionaires. Wealthy families favor Dubai because they can easily establish themselves there. The city’s regulations are more flexible than those in Geneva, Singapore, or Hong Kong. Furthermore, Dubai offers all the amenities affluent individuals expect, including high-end services, a high-performing healthcare system, leisure activities, shopping malls, and luxury boutiques. The international airport provides access to capital cities worldwide, notably via Emirates, one of the world’s leading airlines.
dubai people cityThe Challenge of Islamic Finance

Dubai is competing with Kuala Lumpur to become the world capital of Islamic finance. The authorities also intend to establish the city as a hub for fintech companies to develop the crypto-asset market. Many cryptocurrency companies are leaving Hong Kong or London to establish a presence there. Within the DIFC, more than 8,000 financial institutions are present, employing 48,000 people. Twenty-seven of the world’s 29 most important banks have offices there, including five of the largest Chinese banks. JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, BlackRock, and others have also chosen Dubai.

Over the past ten years, the size of banking assets has grown 200% to reach $240 billion. The DIFC has also become a major insurance hub for Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. However, Dubai is not without its weaknesses. Its rapid, speculative growth leaves it vulnerable to price changes and corrections in the financial or real estate sectors. The financial market is not very diversified, with few local companies listed. Reputational risk persists due to money laundering and opaque capital flows. After putting the UAE under close watch for a period of time, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an intergovernmental organization established in 1989 at the behest of the G7 to formulate policies aimed at combating money laundering and safeguarding specific interests, decided to include it on its gray list for the years 2022–2025.

Although this designation has since been lifted, the threat remains. The UAE Ministry of the Interior has stated that it has handled 521 money laundering cases in recent years in collaboration with international organizations. Over one billion dollars has been seized. In 2023, Dubai implemented a low corporation tax and a 5% Value Added Tax (VAT) to set itself apart from offshore havens. Being named a tax haven is no longer mainly advantageous for the wealthy.

Dubai does not seek to supplant New York or London; rather, it is positioning itself as a premier worldwide financial hub, comparable to Singapore. Dubai is currently ranked 11th among financial cities, whereas Paris has the 18th position, Shanghai is 8th, and San Francisco is 5th.

Dubai’s rise is based on a strategy combining political stability, legal innovation, and international openness. While the Gulf city remains exposed to certain structural risks, it continues to attract talent and capital at an unprecedented rate. It is now establishing itself as an essential link in the financial geography of the 21st century.




Richard Rousseau, Ph.D., is an international relations expert. He was formerly a professor and head of political science departments at universities in Canada, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and the United Arab Emirates. His research interests include the former Soviet Union, international security, international political economy, and globalization. Dr. Rousseau's approximately 800 books, book chapters, academic journal and scholarly articles, conference papers, and newspaper analyses on a variety of international affairs issues have been published in numerous publications, including The Jamestown Foundation (Washington, D.C.), Global Brief, World Affairs in the 21st Century (Canada), Foreign Policy In Focus (Washington, D.C.), Open Democracy (UK), Harvard International Review, Diplomatic Courier (Washington, C.D.), Foreign Policy Journal (U.S.), Europe's World (Brussels), Political Reflection Magazine (London), Center for Security Studies (CSS, Zurich), Eurasia Review, Global Asia (South Korea), The Washington Review of Turkish and Eurasian Affairs, Journal of Turkish Weekly (Ankara), The Georgian Times (Tbilisi), among others.

Sunday, December 28, 2025

SURENDER SAYS CZAR PUTIN

Putin warns of force if Ukraine rejects peace talks ahead of Trump-Zelenskyy meet

Putin said Russia would use force if Ukraine rejects peace talks after heavy attacks on Kyiv, while Zelenskyy said the strikes showed Moscow's desire to continue the war.




Russian President Vladimir Putin.

India Today World Desk
New Delhi,
Dec 28, 2025 

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday said Moscow believed Kyiv was in no rush to end the conflict through peaceful means, warning that Russia would achieve all objectives of its so-called “special military operation” by force if diplomacy failed.

Putin’s remarks were reported by Russian state news agency TASS and came amid intensified Russian military action against Ukraine. The statement followed a massive overnight barrage in which Russia launched around 500 drones and 40 missiles at Kyiv and surrounding regions, killing at least one person and injuring about 27 others.
advertisement

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the prolonged, 10-hour bombardment was clear evidence that Moscow had no intention of ending the war it launched in February 2022, a conflict that has since claimed tens of thousands of lives.

The Kremlin earlier said Putin had visited a Russian military command post, where he received briefings from Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov and commanders overseeing the “Centre” and “East” groupings of Russian forces. Russian officials later claimed fresh territorial gains, saying their troops had captured towns in Ukraine’s Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia regions.

Zelenskyy is set to meet US President Donald Trump in Florida on Sunday, as discussions continue on possible pathways to end the nearly four-year-long war. Talks are expected to include security guarantees and territorial disputes, particularly in Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia.


WHAT ZELENSKYY SAID

Zelenskyy arrived in Canada on Saturday for talks, en route to his meeting with Trump, just hours after Russia pummelled Kyiv with drones and missiles in its latest attack on the capital.

Later the same day, Russia claimed further advances along different sections of the frontline. Zelenskyy said the renewed assault underscored Russia’s unwillingness to pursue peace, calling the attacks “Russia’s answer to our peace efforts.”

He reiterated that Ukraine remains committed to a diplomatic resolution, but said Moscow’s actions showed it was determined to prolong the war.

WHAT CANADA PM SAID


Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney on Saturday said achieving lasting peace in Ukraine would require cooperation from Russia, strongly condemning the latest Russian strikes on Kyiv as “barbaric.”

“We have the conditions for a just and lasting peace, but that requires a willing Russia,” Carney said, according to AFP, while speaking during a stop in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on his way to meet Trump in Florida.

Carney also announced CAN$2.5 billion (US$1.82 billion) in new economic assistance for Ukraine, saying the funds would help unlock international financing needed to begin rebuilding the country even as the war continues.

- Ends




Arms Control Putin-Style Goes Nowhere – Analysis

December 28, 2025 
The Jamestown Foundation
By Dr. Pavel K. Baev

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s offer on September 22 to extend the limitations on the strategic nuclear forces set by the Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (New START) between the United States and Russian Federation appeared reasonable and meaningful (U.S. State Department, April 8, 2010; President of Russia, April 8, 2010September 22).

New START is due to expire on February 5, 2026, and even experts in Moscow who are loath to join the ranks of “patriotic” drum-beaters found Putin’s proposition timely and useful (Kommersant, October 7). The Kremlin, however, did not pursue follow-up actions. Deputy Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov sourly confirmed the failure of opening a dialogue on that traditional high-priority track, despite Russian media celebrating Putin’s offer and U.S. President Donald Trump saying that extending NEW START sounded like a good idea (TASS, October 5; Mezhdunarodnaya Zhizn, December 8).

Putin’s offer has now all but disappeared. The only trace of it is in the leaked memo, known as the “28-point plan,” which was published in all Russian mainstream media (Kommersant, November 21). Russian experts pointed out a mistake in point 17, which confused New START with START I, stating, “The United States and Russia will agree to extend the validity of treaties on the non-proliferation and control of nuclear weapons, including the START I Treaty.” Russian media concluded that the document was an “odd hybrid” of various drafts prepared by incompetent mediators (Rossiiskaya gazeta, November 21). It is unclear whether this point—or the reference to the long-expired treaty—will survive the presumed reduction of the peace plan to 20 points or its division into four separate packages (RBC, December 8). The absence of any mention of strategic arms control in the new U.S. National Security Strategy is clear. Russian commentators appeared to find this omission flabbergasting (Vedomosti, December 5; Kommersant, December 7). Following the document’s publication, the Russian Foreign Ministry expressed disappointment at the lack of a U.S. vision for maintaining the balance of strategic forces (Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, December 8).

Nuclear deterrence has traditionally been central to Russian security thinking. The Russian National Security Strategy approved by Putin in July 2021 places great emphasis on maintaining strategic stability. It prescribes maintaining nuclear capabilities at a level sufficient for neutralizing growing threats, which it claims are caused by the U.S. dismantlement of the system of arms control (Russian Security Council, July 2, 2021). The new Russian Nuclear Doctrine, approved in November 2024, elaborates on this priority and defines conditions for a decision on the first use of nuclear weapons (President of Russia, November 19, 2024). The Kremlin’s preoccupation with nuclear matters came into focus when the Russian Security Council convened an emergency meeting on November 5 to deliberate an appropriate response to Trump’s presumed order to resume nuclear testing (see EDM, November 3; President of Russia, November 5). Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov omitted Russian violations of various agreements when he claimed that the United States would breach the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (1996) (Kommersant, November 5)

That misunderstanding about nuclear testing has been mostly cleared up. The problem of Russia seeking status as an equal nuclear power to the United States, however, remains. The Kremlin’s desire for a leading role on the world stage is underpinned by sustained efforts at modernizing its nuclear arsenal (Rossiiskaya gazeta, December 8). Much of the new U.S. National Security Strategy denies Russia the status of a major global power in the emerging multipolar world, not least due to its full-scale invasion of Ukraine (Nezavisimaya gazeta, December 7). From this perspective, Russia’s role is reduced, and it is uncertain where a possible end to the hostilities will leave Russia (Vzglyad, December 9).

Putin has sought to counter this challenge by simultaneously narrowing and widening the agenda of the ongoing peace talks (see Jamestown, November 26). The former is achieved by focusing peace negotiations on the demand to award Russia the unconquered part of Ukraine’s Donetsk oblast (Republic.ru, December 3). The latter is attempted by impressing upon Washington, D.C., the importance of discussions on strategic stability, primarily by announcing tests of new weapon systems, such as the Burevestnik cruise missile and the Poseidon unmanned underwater vehicle, both nuclear-powered and capable of carrying nuclear warheads (Profile, November 11). The Kremlin has proposed a range of presumably lucrative joint projects, including constructing a tunnel connecting Alaska and Chukotka, to persuade the United States to look beyond what the Kremlin perceives as pesky details of territorial exchanges (Izvestiya, October 20).

Putin’s offer to stick to the limits set by New START was not as far-fetched as the Bering Sea tunnel, and it probably had a hidden agenda. Putin did not suggest an exchange of data or a resumption of verification procedures, which were affected by his February 2023 decree suspending Russia’s participation in New START (President of Russia, February 21, 2023; Forbes.ru, September 25). Moscow has no reason to suspect that U.S. nuclear arms will exceed the agreed-upon ceilings, but it probably seeks to hide the shrinking of its arsenal to well below the limits. The only part of the hugely expensive modernization program that is on track, with only slight delays, is the construction of Borei-class submarines. Putin inaugurated the eighth one (Knyaz’ Pozharsky, Князь Пожарский) in July, which joined the Northern Fleet without performing the mandatory launch of the Bulava missile (see EDM, May 30; President of Russia, July 24; Korabel.ru, August 3). Russia’s Strategic Rocket Forces need to retire all of the old heavy intercontinental missiles (SS-18 and SS-19) and the lighter Topol (SS-25) as well, but the new Sarmat (SS-X-29) missile, which Putin announced as ready for deployment in March 2018, failed one test in September 2024 and exploded early in another one on November 28 (Meduza, September 25, 2024; Verstka.media, November 28). Russia’s Long-Range Aviation, which has performed hard combat missions since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, is currently in an even worse state. Poor maintenance has caused many incidents—including the crash of a Tu-22M3 bomber in the Irkutsk oblast last April—while a dozen planes were destroyed and many more seriously damaged in Ukraine’s Operation Spiderweb on June 1 (Meduza, April 2; The Moscow Times, June 6). Current production levels of the Tu-160 bombers at the Kazan plant reach only a couple of planes a year, while the PAK-DA project for the stealth bomber has been postponed indefinitely (Radio Svoboda, June 28; 1.ru, September 20).

The scarcity of data due to wartime Russian censorship obscures the true scale of these setbacks. Putin is keen to deny the degradation of Russia’s strategic arsenal by both engaging in nuclear posturing and demonstrating readiness to discuss issues pertaining to strategic stability. This performance is aimed not only at the United States and Europe, but also at the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The PRC is building up its deterrence capabilities and presented many new weapon systems during its Victory Day parade on September 3, marking the end of World War II, which Putin attended (see China Brief, October 1; Top War, November 10). The PRC has so far refused to engage in any talks on limiting its nuclear arsenal. Moscow cannot embrace the PRC as a party to a treaty prohibiting the first use of nuclear weapons, but instead hopes that Beijing would approve its intention to preserve the framework of New START (RIAC, July 14).

Putin’s offer to extend New START reflects a deeper struggle to achieve recognition for Russia’s status as a global power and a peer competitor to the United States. The Kremlin cannot, nevertheless, develop any innovative framework to address the rapid progress in aeronautics, space, and information/artificial intelligence technologies, which are increasingly foreign to its defense-industrial base. These constraints make performative gestures an important tool for projecting strength and relevance as “European allies enjoy a significant hard power advantage over Russia by almost every measure, save nuclear weapons” (The White House, December 4). This reality may compel Putin to resort to nuclear brinksmanship even more often.


About the author: Dr. Pavel K. Baev is a senior researcher at the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO).

Source: This article was published by The Jamestown Foundation

The Jamestown Foundation

The Jamestown Foundation’s mission is to inform and educate policy makers and the broader community about events and trends in those societies which are strategically or tactically important to the United States and which frequently restrict access to such information. Utilizing indigenous and primary sources, Jamestown’s material is delivered without political bias, filter or agenda. It is often the only source of information which should be, but is not always, available through official or intelligence channels, especially in regard to Eurasia and terrorism.


Tuesday, December 02, 2025

If Europe wants war with Russia, 'we are ready': Putin

Issued on: 02/12/2025 - 

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday that Russia was "ready" for war if Europe seeks one, accusing Europe of trying to sabotage a deal on the Ukraine conflict before he met with US envoys. FRANCE 24's Gulliver Cragg reports from Kyiv.


Video by:  Gulliver CRAGG



Flaws In Putin’s Art Of No-Deal For Peace Become Apparent – Analysis
The Jamestown Foundation
By Pavel K. Baev


Frantic negotiations for a truce in Russia’s 45-month-long war against Ukraine in the last two weeks of November are likely to continue late into December. U.S. negotiators have faced backlash from other Western leaders following the November 19 leak of a draft U.S.–Russian peace proposal that heavily favored Moscow.

Leaked phone calls between top Kremlin advisers Yuri Ushakov and Kirill Dmitriev and between Ushakov and U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff heightened the controversy (Carnegie Politika, November 27). Ukrainians were shocked by Witkoff’s readiness to integrate many Russian demands into the 28-point proposal. The initial proposal was at least partly drafted during a meeting between unofficial U.S. advisor Jared Kushner, Witkoff, and Dmitriev (The Insider; Reuters, November 26). European leaders were angered by their exclusion from the drafting process. They took issue with the proposed appropriation of frozen Russian financial assets, the majority of which are in European banks and remain a matter of internal debate in the European Union (Meduza, November 21).

Several rounds of revisions and Ukrainian input have curtailed and clarified the now roughly 19-point proposal, which Witkoff is set to present to Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow this week (RBC, November 28). The problem for Putin is that rejecting this updated plan could antagonize U.S. President Donald Trump. Suggesting changes would mean accepting the basic framework of the updated draft, which reportedly dismisses aspects of the Russian demand to address “root causes” of the war by increasing the number of troops that Ukraine is allowed to keep and potentially leaving the question of Ukraine’s future North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) membership open (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, November 26).

Even the initial 28-point plan departed from many of the Kremlin’s maximalist demands that it has presented as non-negotiable since the start of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which some hyper-nationalist Russian commentators criticized (Topwar.ru, November 24). The initial leaked plan’s ceiling of 600,000 for Ukrainian troops—which Kyiv rejects as a matter of principle—is seven times higher than Moscow’s original demand. Without any restrictions on key weapon systems, Ukraine’s army could become a “steel porcupine,” extensively armed to deter further Russian aggression (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, November 23).

The stance that Putin appears to assume to avoid further compromises is the demand for a full retreat of the Ukrainian forces from the Donetsk oblast, justified by the assumption that continued steady Russian advances are inevitable (Izvestiya, November 27). The real situation in the battle for Pokrovsk is somewhat different from the triumphant reports from Chief of the Russian General Staff Valery Gerasimov, but what matters for Putin’s intention to delay genuine peace talks is the assumption that giving up Ukrainian-held territory is unacceptable to Kyiv (The Insider, November 28).



Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy may nevertheless be compelled—amid a very difficult domestic political situation—to take the risk of agreeing to withdraw from Donbas on the condition of Russian retreat from smaller occupied territories in the Dnipro, Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Sumy regions, if a “stabilization force” of European “coalition of the willing” is deployed, backed by strong U.S. security guarantees (The Moscow Times, November 25; Radio Svoboda, November 27). This diplomatic maneuver is likely to be resented by Ukrainian troops, but their anger can be redirected toward Putin, who is loath to accept any conditions that would ensure Ukraine’s sovereignty and its anchoring to Europe (Novaya Gazeta Europe, November 28).

The main incentive Witkoff can offer Putin to show greater flexibility is the prospect of a new meeting with Trump. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said during his Moscow visit last Friday that Budapest would be a perfect place to make a peace deal (Izvestiya, November 29). Russian public opinion is ready to accept a cessation of hostilities as a “victory,” and some mainstream pundits are advancing arguments for the benefits of preserving the Kremlin’s territorial gains, even if incomplete, and for rehabilitating the new provinces and restoring Russia’s strength (Rossiiskaya Gazeta, November 24). The Kremlin’s war of attrition has depleted Russia’s human and financial resources, and many regions are reducing payments to sign up for contracts to serve in the war zone (see EDM, October 21; Radio Svoboda, November 30). Underfunding for infrastructure inevitably results in various breakdowns, with the serious damage to the space launch site at the Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan and the failed test of the Sarmat intercontinental missile just two examples (Naked Science, November 29; The Moscow Times, November 30).

Putin may have a more positive view of Russia’s economic performance than most experts, but the enforcement of new U.S. sanctions against Rosneft and Lukoil has clearly upset him (Kommersant, November 28). The sharp drop in oil export revenues is a serious setback for government efforts to slow the rapidly rising budget deficit, but Putin appears to be less concerned about macroeconomic impacts and more concerned about the unexpected application of U.S. sanctions (Glavportal, November 26). Putin

Putin appears to hope for a swift resumption of unimpeded economic relations with the United States. The drafts disregard EU reservations about lifting sanctions, and the initial 28-point draft contained the odd provision that all “ambiguities of the last 30 years” would be considered settled (Vedomosti, November 21). Corrupt and sanctioned “oligarchs” with close ties to Putin, such as Yuri Kovalchuk and Gennady Timchenko, have already begun discussing new joint ventures, including access to gas fields and rare-earth metals, with anonymous U.S. partners (The Moscow Times, November 30). Ukraine, in the meantime, has expanded its war against the Russian energy sector by directly hitting two tankers of the Russian “shadow fleet” in the Black Sea with naval drones (Vzglyad, November 29).

Putin makes proposals for an end to his war so beneficial for Russia that they are unacceptable for Kyiv, and attempts to blame Ukraine for the lack of peace. This art of no-deal has repeatedly been exposed as fraud through determined efforts by Zelenskyy, his many allies in Europe, and some politicians and experts in Washington. Profits from doing business with Russia are a mirage—the economic environment in Putin’s militarized autocracy would remain, even after a hypothetical ceasefire, harsh and severely corrupt. No beautiful peace can come from the ugly war that makes a lot of sense for the ageing dictator in the Kremlin. If Putin’s calculus is altered by consistent and collective Western pressure, however, a difficult compromise could be reached that would neutralize his obsession with subjugating Ukraine.


About the author: Dr. Pavel K. Baev is a senior researcher at the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO).

Source: This article was published by The Jamestown Foundation



The Jamestown Foundation

The Jamestown Foundation’s mission is to inform and educate policy makers and the broader community about events and trends in those societies which are strategically or tactically important to the United States and which frequently restrict access to such information. Utilizing indigenous and primary sources, Jamestown’s material is delivered without political bias, filter or agenda. It is often the only source of information which should be, but is not always, available through official or intelligence channels, especially in regard to Eurasia and terrorism.

Monday, December 01, 2025

 

General Zaluzhnyi attacks Zelenskiy’s administration in apparent bid for the presidency

General Zaluzhnyi attacks Zelenskiy’s administration in apparent bid for the presidency
Ukraine’s former commander in chief and now ambassador to the UK General Valerii Zaluzhnyi lashed out at the Zelenskiy administration in what could be the start of a bid to take over as president as the president comes under increasing pressure due to an escalating corruption scandal. / bne IntelliNews
By Ben Aris in Berlin December 1, 2025

Ukraine’s former commander in chief and now ambassador to the UK General Valerii Zaluzhnyi lashed out at the Zelenskiy administration in what appears to be the start of a bid to take over as president.

The well-liked Zaluzhnyi was sacked by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy last year following the failure of the 2023 summer offensive which he described as bringing the war to a stalemate. However, it is widely believed that Zelenskiy removed Zaluzhnyi after he overtook the president in the polls.

Zaluzhnyi took the unusual step of publishing a critical opinion piece in the UK’s Telegraph titled How to defeat Putin and build a better Ukraine”, as well as posting similar remarks on social media the same day.

The criticism comes at a sensitive time for Zelenskiy, who is embroiled in the largest corruption scandal of his career, after his former business partner Timur Mindich was accused by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) of masterminding a $100mn kick-back scheme at the state-owned utility company Energoatom. Mindich skipped the country only hours before NABU raided his office and home, where a solid gold toilet was discovered as well as packs of hundreds of thousands of euros and dollars.

The corruption scandal has been expanding and claimed the powerful éminence grise of Ukraine on November 28, Andriy Yermak, the head of Ukraine’s presidential office and Zelenskiy closest advisor.

Yermak resigned after NABU searched his home and office. He has since said he will enlist and go to the frontline. Critics have pointed out that if Yermak enlists the relevant authority in charge of investigating crimes committed by soldiers is the State Bureau of Investigation and technically the investigation by NABU will have to be transferred to the State Bureau of Investigation, which reports to the president. NABU is entirely independent of the government and president and has its own independent Anti-Corruption Court (ACC) to prosecute high officials.

The Zaluzhny attack accused the Zelenskiy’s administration of not being able to define the political goal of Ukraine’s war efforts.

“He goes on to define the goal in even more radical terms than Zelenskiy ever defined it - a full destruction of the “Russian empire”. Also, he conveniently ignores the fact that Ukraine’s political goals had to shift when he failed to deliver a victorious counter-offensive in 2023 as Ukraine’s commander-in-chief,” journalist and bne IntelliNews columnist Leonid Ragozin said in a comment.

“More than anything, the article sells Zaluzhny himself as a leader who - unlike Zelenskiy - understands war and grand political strategy. A clear presidential pitch, Ragozin added.

The wartime trinity

“War cannot be waged effectively without a clear political goal. After all, war is not an end in itself, it is waged for political goals. Russia has long ago defined its goal as the destruction of Ukraine as an independent state,” Zaluzhnyi said in a social media post. “Ukraine's political goal in the Russian-Ukrainian war should be formed on the basis of such challenges. And the basis of such a goal should be to deprive Russia of opportunities for aggression against Ukraine in the foreseeable future.”

In a detailed conversation with the Ukrainian publication Liga.net, Zaluzhnyi gave more details of his objections to Zelenskiy's war strategy.

The philosophical framing of the criticism suggests that Zelenskiy has not understood the nature of war and its political problems, whereas he, Zaluzhnyi, does understand this problem and by implication is better suited to lead the country.

“The political purpose of war is what answers all questions. It is this term that makes it possible to see not only what the enemy is doing, but also how to move forward ourselves. And if, according to the [military analyst] Clausewitz, war is a "trinity": the population, the armed forces and the state administration, then these aspects are three different codes of laws and among these parties, it is the population that is the most sensitive party in terms of supporting the war,” Zaluzhnyi said.

“Without public support, it is impossible to wage a war successfully. Then perhaps the main form of such public support is the attitude of society, first of all, to mobilisation, which quickly began to fail,” Zaluzhnyi added.

Immediately after the Russian invasion, the government imposed martial law and began an aggressive and highly unpopular mandatory conscription drive. Military police officers have been grabbing men from the street and throwing them into buses before they are sent to the frontline.

Zaluzhnyi goes on to argue that Russia has managed to marshal all three elements of Clausewitz’s trinity and is well prepared for a long war should the current peace negations with the US fail. Ukraine, however, continues to suffer from its trinity of problems: the lack of men, money and materiel. More stingingly, Zaluzhnyi accuses Zelenskiy of having no clear political goal in the war.

“War does not always end with the victory of one side and the defeat of the other. We Ukrainians strive for complete victory, but we cannot reject the option of a long-term end to the war. Peace, even in anticipation of the next war, provides a chance for political change, for deep reforms, for full recovery, economic growth and the return of citizens,” Zaluzhnyi said on social media in what appears to be a political agenda for a post-war recovery in Ukraine.

“It is even possible to speak about the beginning of the formation of a safe, protected state through innovation and technology; of strengthening the foundations of justice through the fight against corruption and the creation of an honest court system; and of economic development, including on the basis of international economic recovery programmes,” he added.

Ukrainian Corruption Investigation Reveals Derkach’s Role – Analysis



File photo of Andrei Derkach. Photo: Andriy Derkach / Telegram

December 2, 2025 
By Dr. Taras Kuzio


A high-level corruption scandal has been roiling Ukraine’s domestic politics and undermining trust in Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The scandal follows the president’s attempts in July to remove the independence of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor (SAPO), which have been investigating this corruption case since last year (Zmina, July 31).

Russia’s long-term involvement in Ukraine’s economy allowed it to collect kompromat (компромат, compromising material) on Ukrainian elites, sow internal strife to undermine national unity and morale in the army, and collect intelligence on Ukraine’s air defenses (Argument, November 13). Some of the funds stolen in the corruption scandal were meant to build defenses for Ukrainian utilities.

In November, evidence released by the NABU showed that $100 million from contracts for nuclear facility protection that was reported to have been stolen was laundered at a central Kyiv office owned by the family of Andrei Derkach, a former Ukrainian member of parliament and current Russian senator (NABU, November 10; Euromaidan Press, November 11). Ihor Myronyuk, an aide to Derkach for over a decade, handled the cash for the corruption scheme (Euromaidan Press, November 11). At least $2 million of the stolen funds were transferred to Derkach. NABU detectives found items in the office labeled “Federal Protective Service of the Russian Federation” (Euromaidan Press, November 11).

Derkach grew up in a Committee for State Security (KGB) family during the Soviet Union (Liga.net, November 12). His father, Leonid, worked in the Soviet Ukrainian KGB from 1972—when a major pogrom targeting Ukrainian dissent and culture took place—until the Soviet Union’s collapse in late 1991 to early 1992. Leonid Derkach then served as chairman of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) from 1998 to 2001. He was removed from the SBU over the scandal surrounding the murder of journalist Georgi Gongadze in the fall of 2000, and after a July 2000 recording showed his involvement in the sale of four Kolchuga radars to Iraq, which was under international sanctions at that time (Maidan.org.ua, February 19, 2001; Ukrainska Pravda, May 22, 2002).

Andrei Derkach served with the Soviet KGB and the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) in Moscow from 1990 until 1993. He was then a parliamentary deputy for the pro-presidential For a United Ukraine, Socialist Party, Party of Regions, and one of its successors, Will of the People. He owned ERA TV and Radio and the Russian-language newspaper Kievskij Telegraf (Kyiv Telegraph), named after a newspaper published in Kyiv from 1859 to 1876.

The Yuliya Tymoshenko government appointed Derkach as president of Energoatom in 2006. Since then, he has maintained a network of corrupt allies with ties to Russia inside Ukraine’s nuclear power sector. This, as seen in the explosive corruption scandal, was undertaken on behalf of Russia (Liga.net, November 14). For years, Ukraine’s entire nuclear energy sector was under the complete control of an FSB agent network, created by Derkach back in 2006 (Argument, November 13). He attempted to consolidate Ukraine’s nuclear industry into the Kremlin’s structures (Liga.net, November 14).



Throughout the last two decades, U.S. intelligence has been ahead of the SBU in monitoring Derkach’s ties to Russian intelligence. In September 2020, the U.S. Treasury Department accused Derkach of being an active Russian agent for over a decade (U.S. Treasury Department, September 10, 2020).

Despite former Chief of Staff of the Ukrainian Presidential Administration Andriy Yermak promising tough measures against Ukrainians who had interfered in the 2020 U.S. election, the U.S. sanctions against Derkach led to no criminal charges (Kyiv Post, January 13, 2021; Radio Svoboda, August 20, 2021). Derkach fled to Russia only after Russia’s February 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. After fleeing, Derkach received Russian citizenship and has lived in Astrakhan. In fall 2024, he became a senator in Russia’s Federation Council and a member of its Defense Committee (Hromadske.ua, November 14, 2024).

Five months after he fled Ukraine, the SBU accused Derkach of receiving $3–4 million per month from the Russian Military Intelligence Agency (GRU) to create private security companies to assist Russian invasion forces (Kyiv Independent, September 16, 2024). Inform Napalm, a Ukrainian non-governmental organization (NGO) that has investigated Russian disinformation since 2014, concluded that Russia controlled Derkach’s operation in the United States (Inform Napalm, February 15, 2021). The Kremlin’s goals were to worsen U.S.–Ukrainian relations, end U.S. military support for Ukraine, foil former U.S. President Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign, and portray Ukraine as a U.S. puppet state (Ukrainska Pravda, October 9, 2019).

An additional goal was to fabricate evidence of Zelenskyy’s supposed personal vendetta against former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and sow political instability in Ukraine. In May 2020, Derkach released tapes in four batches, including doctored conversations between Poroshenko and Biden. Zelenskyy quickly ordered criminal charges of treason against Poroshenko (Zerkalo Nedeli, May 24, 2020). The tapes allegedly showed high-level corruption in Ukraine under Poroshenko and the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv’s control over the Ukrainian president, government, and NABU (Ukrainska Pravda, October 9, 2019). The fake tapes and the NABU-leaks.com website claimed Biden had tried to halt Ukraine’s investigation into the gas company Burisma, where his son, Hunter, was a consultant.

In July 2022, Derkach’s head bodyguard was detained together with a large amount of cash, weapons, and pro-Russian literature (Ukrainska Pravda, July 27, 2022). In September 2022, the NABU and SAPO charged Derkach in absentia with high treason and illicit enrichment. In 2023, Derkach was stripped of his Ukrainian citizenship (President of Ukraine, January 10, 2023). In November 2023, the Ukrainian State Bureau of Investigation (DBR) accused Derkach, Servant of the People Deputy Oleksandr Dubinsky, and former General Prosecutor Kostyantyn Kulyk of working for the GRU (Ukrainian State Bureau of Investigation, November 13, 2023). At the same time, a federal indictment from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of New York was issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), accusing Derkach of bank fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Derkach had purchased condos in Beverley Hills using shell companies to hide ownership and move millions of dollars (U.S. Justice Department, December 7, 2022).
Derkach’s Corruption Network

The SBU, which has a history of success in uncovering spies, seemingly allowed a Russian agent to operate in the Ukrainian parliament for twelve years. This was only possible because, as Holos (Voice) Party deputy Yaroslav Zheleznyak stated, Derkach’s corrupt network had high-level protection (in criminal slang, a krysha [крышa; roof]), which meant he and his allies were virtually untouchable (Kyiv Post, November 11). For example, in November 2020, Prosecutor General Iryna Venediktov refused to open criminal cases against Derkach and Dubinsky for treason and money laundering (Ukrainska Pravda, November 3, 2020). Timur Mindich, head of the corruption conspiracy, ran an illegal diamond business in Russia and Ukraine from 2015 to 2024 (Zerkalo Nedeli, October 23). Ukraine only launched criminal action against Derkach and Mindich after they had been allowed to flee from Ukraine. Mindich’s whereabouts are unconfirmed, but he is most likely to be in Israel, where he holds a second citizenship.

Derkach’s May 2019–2020 network included pro-Russian politician Anatoly Shariy; businessman Taras Kozak; the wife of Viktor Medvedchuk and owner of a Crimean gas company, Oksana Marchenko; former President Viktor Yanukovych’s legal assistant Andrei Portnov; oligarch Ihor Kolomoysky; and pro-Russian Nash (Ours) TV journalist Nazar Diorditsa. Portnov was assassinated in Madrid in May (Kyiv Independent, May 22).

The intermediary in the conspiracy was Dmytro Firtash. The United States has sought to extradite Firtash from Austria since 2014 for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in a titanium mine in India, some of whose exports were to be sold to a Chicago company. After Firtash’s arrest in 2014, his bail was paid by the head of Russia’s judo association, which has close links to Russian President Vladimir Putin (Profil.at, October 23, 2019). Firtash had been Russia’s representative in Ukraine since the late 1990s, tasked with buying up strategic sectors of Ukraine’s economy on behalf of the Kremlin (seeEDM, July 26, 2010).

In 2017, Spain issued an additional extradition request over Firtash’s ties to Russian organized crime operating in the country. In 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice accused Firtash of being in the “upper echelon associates of Russian organized crime,” a reference to his ties to mobster Semyon Mogilevich, who is on a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) wanted list. Firtash had told then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor as far back as 2008 of his links to Mogilevich (Wikileaks, December 10, 2008).

Mindich was the youngest partner of oligarch Ihor Kolomoysky, whose TV channel 1+1 was hostile to Poroshenko because of the removal of Kolomoysky’s control over UkrNafta state oil company in 2015 and the nationalization of Privat Bank in 2016. Kolomoysky was Zelenskyy’s main backer in the 2019 elections against Poroshenko. Ukraine only detained Kolomoysky in September 2023 on money laundering charges at Privat Bank, eighteen months after the U.S. Department of Justice opened charges of embezzlement and fraud (U.S. Department of Justice, January 20, 2022).

Mindich is a co-owner of the Kvartal 95 television production company with Zelenskyy. Zelenskyy’s birthday was celebrated in Mindich’s Kyiv apartment in January 2021. In November of that year, Mindich attended Yermak’s birthday party in the presidential residence in western Ukraine (Euromaidan Press, November 12). Zelenskyy and his former Chief of Staff, Yermak, promised a full investigation. The main opposition party, led by Poroshenko, called for a government of national unity staffed by technocrats (European Solidarity, November 11).

The root of the corruption scandal lies in the president’s office providing a krysha. Investigation of high-level corruption is prevented because the president controls the SBU and the Prosecutor General’s Office. The NABU and SAPO, established under Poroshenko, are independent of the president, which is likely why Zelenskyy sought to curtail their operational independence. To avoid future scandals and conflicts of interest, the SBU and Prosecutor General’s Office should gain the same level of independence from the president as the NABU and SAPO. 


This article was published by The Jamestown Foundation

Dr. Taras Kuzio

Taras Kuzio is a professor of political science at the National University of Kyiv Mohyla Academy. He is co-author of The Four Roots of Russia’s War Against Ukraine (Cambridge University Press, 2026); co-editor of Russia and Modern Fascism: New Perspectives on the Kremlin’s War Against Ukraine (Columbia University Press, 2025); Crimea: Where Russia’s War Started and Where Ukraine Will Win (Jamestown Foundation, 2024), and Russian Nationalism and the Russian-Ukrainian War (Routledge, 2022). He can be found on X/Twitter @TarasKuzio

Saturday, November 29, 2025

CRITICAL RACE THEORY

INTERVIEW 


The Thanksgiving Myth Hides the US’s Inability to Reckon With Its Own History

“I’m not against giving thanks. I’m against celebrating a falsehood,” says Choctaw historian
 A. S. Dillingham.

By Jesse Hagopian , TruthoutPublishedNovember 27, 2025Dillingham explains how Thanksgiving functions to whitewash the history of settler colonialism.H. Armstrong Roberts / ClassicStock / Getty Images


Support justice-driven, accurate and transparent news — make a quick donation to Truthout today!

“The assault by the Trump administration on honest history is hitting everyone,” A. S. Dillingham, a tribal member of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and a historian at Arizona State University, says.

This assault on history is particularly glaring this week, as repression and censorship push teachers and politicians alike to acquiesce to the celebration of a sanitized falsehood instead of using the Thanksgiving holiday as an opportunity to reckon with the dispossession and genocide that white settlers inflicted upon Indigenous peoples after arriving in the Americas.

In the interview that follows, Dillingham — the author of Oaxaca Resurgent: Indigeneity, Development, and Inequality in Twentieth-Century Mexico, who often shares his analysis on his website — explains how Thanksgiving functions to whitewash the history of settler colonialism. As a scholar whose work centers Indigenous history, colonialism, and education, Dillingham also has invaluable insights to share on how we can teach honestly about Indigenous history, even amid the current political climate.

The interview that follows has been lightly edited for clarity.

Jesse Hagopian: A couple of years ago you wrote a critique of the traditional Thanksgiving story that was published in The Washington Post. Can you talk about the reaction to it?


Thanksgiving Myths Aim to Silence Indigenous Voices. We Won’t Be Silent.
Let’s reject all settlers myths this Thanksgiving and honor Indigenous resistance.
By Johnnie Jae , TruthoutNovember 28, 2024


A. S. Dillingham: The reaction was revealing. After that piece ran, I got a wave of angry emails. One person even asked, “What do you have against being thankful?” — as if critiquing a national myth means I don’t appreciate gratitude or sharing a good meal with family and friends.

When people frame my critique as an attack on gratitude, they’re missing the point. I’m not against giving thanks. I’m against celebrating a falsehood instead of reckoning with the history Indigenous peoples have survived.

A single (largely inaccurate) tale of supposed harmony has been turned into a national origin story that hides the real foundations of the United States.

As a historian and a member of the Choctaw Nation, what do you see as the most damaging myths embedded in the Thanksgiving story? And what truths do those myths work to obscure about the real relationship between Indigenous nations and the U.S. settler state?

I think the Thanksgiving myth, like any myth, is based on some historical facts and then some lies and misrepresentations. The Thanksgiving story is based on real events that took place in 1621: a meal was shared between Pilgrims and the Wampanoag. But basically, the way that story is told in our public celebrations or in school pageants has very little to do with the historical reality.

There was a shared meal, but it wasn’t a kind of Thanksgiving. The Wampanoag heard Pilgrims shooting off their rifles in celebration, and they came running to assist because there was a mutual defense pact between the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag. And so it was basically a meal shared after a misunderstanding. What we celebrate today has very little to do with what actually happened. That mythologized version of those events was then taken up at the end of the U.S. Civil War: President Lincoln declared it an official holiday in 1863. And it was part of an effort to unite a brutally divided country.


“For much of the first few centuries of European settlement, Europeans were actually the weaker party, and they were trying to hold on to a continent they did not control.”

In terms of your question about what the myth obscures, I think one of the things it does is assert that there was a peaceful existence between Native people and Pilgrims in New England, and we celebrate that as the foundational story of the United States. That myth obscures some of the other central dynamics of early colonial history, which were that for the first century or two of European settlement in the Americas, Native Americans controlled the vast majority of the North American continent. European settlers, including the Pilgrims, were basically hanging on to the edges of the continent and were forced to stay in colonial outposts in which their security and often their material well-being were based on their ability to make alliances with Native Americans who were more powerful than them.

Native Americans and the Pilgrims were assisting each other and had a kind of working relationship, but for much of the first few centuries of European settlement, Europeans were actually the weaker party, and they were trying to hold on to a continent they did not control.

By centering the story of New England and Plymouth and the Pilgrims, it obscures other English settlements, like Jamestown, where one of the central dynamics was the African slave trade. The fact is, both African people and Indigenous people were enslaved, trafficked, and forced into servitude by the colonists. That’s a key truth the Thanksgiving story erases.

That framework for understanding the origins of our country is so important — especially as next year marks the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States, and there will be so many celebrations of the nation that don’t wrestle with these difficult truths. I also want to connect this to our current political moment. In an era of book bans, curriculum gag orders, and demands for “patriotic education,” how does the Thanksgiving narrative function within this broader struggle over who gets to define American history?

We are living in a period in which honest history is being attacked, particularly by the presidential administration. The Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture, universities across the country, PBS — institutions dedicated to telling truthful histories — are all being targeted. That includes Native American history.

I think on one level, in terms of popular culture, there has been a growing reconsideration of the Thanksgiving myth — in large part, because of Native American activism.

I think that myth was beginning to unravel, especially as you saw activism around water defenders and challenging pipeline construction. In recent years there was a renewed understanding that Native people were here before European conquest, resisted our dispossession, and are still here.


“Both African people and Indigenous people were enslaved, trafficked, and forced into servitude by the colonists. That’s a key truth the Thanksgiving story erases.”

But we have witnessed a political backlash that insists on a narrative of a white Christian nation that has only done good. You can even see this in Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth doubling down on the Medals of Honor awarded to U.S. soldiers involved in the massacre at Wounded Knee in 1890. The Pentagon had begun a review to officially consider whether the massacre constituted a war crime — but instead of completing that process, we get an insistence by the secretary of defense of maintaining the myth of heroism. That’s where we are.

Exactly. And speaking of violence, one of the most horrific parts of U.S. history is the legacy of Indian boarding schools. Recent revelations have uncovered unmarked graves and extensive documentation of abuse, cultural destruction, and genocide. How should these revelations reshape how Americans understand Thanksgiving — not as a moment of harmony, but part of a longer continuum of state policies aimed at erasure and assimilation?

I think it’s really important. And when Deb Haaland was head of the Department of the Interior — a Native woman herself who oversaw the Bureau of Indian Affairs — some of that research was made more public. But it’s important to understand that boarding schools weren’t unique to the U.S. — Canada and several Latin American countries have had more robust public conversations about their own boarding school systems. The United States appears uniquely unwilling to reckon with this history.

Sometimes my students ask the question, “Where is it better to be an Indigenous person? Is it in the United States? Is it in Canada? Is it in Mexico, somewhere else?” I always find the question frustrating, because we have to think about how Indigenous people have navigated forms of colonial violence in all these different countries.

Yet there does seem to be something unique about the United States’ inability to reckon with its history of violent dispossession and genocide. Educational institutions in Canada have had a much more robust public conversation about boarding schools. And I think there have been more interesting conversations in Latin American countries around the same things.


“There does seem to be something unique about the United States’ inability to reckon with its history of violent dispossession and genocide.”

For most of U.S. history, Native and Black children were never meant to be full subjects in the public education system. They were segregated, exploited, or forcibly assimilated. Boarding schools inflicted sexual violence, cultural destruction, language loss, and the disappearance of children. The United States has a deep inability to confront the reality that its national project depended on Indigenous elimination and exclusion. The Thanksgiving myth is used to try to smooth all that over.

Yes. And in K-12 education, Native Americans are often discussed only in the past tense. Even when violence is acknowledged, it’s framed as if Indigenous peoples were completely wiped out. That erases the ongoing settler-colonial project — land theft, water theft, the ongoing crisis of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG). The Trump administration even recently removed the federal report on MMIWG, dismissing it as diversity, equity, and inclusion content. What does that tell you about how the government is not only erasing Indigenous history, but disappearing evidence of ongoing violence?

Even sympathetic teachers who try to narrate this history more honestly sometimes fall into the trap of talking about Native dispossession or genocide as if it were complete — as if we’re not here anymore. And I think so many Native people have the experience of being in the classroom and hearing people say that while they’re sitting right there, and thinking, “Who am I if we’ve been entirely erased?”

And yes, the violence is ongoing. I’m speaking to you from what is now Arizona, a place of many Native nations, and there are ongoing fights where mining companies want to take sacred Apache lands for private profit and exploitation. This is not something that ended in the 19th century — it’s ongoing in the 21st.

The assault by the Trump administration on honest history is hitting everyone: people working on women’s history, public health, Black history, and people working on murdered and missing Indigenous women, which has been one of the most important fights in Indian Country over the last couple decades. If you remove the evidence and documentation, it becomes harder for communities to make claims and fight back. And because the federal government played such a large role in Indigenous dispossession, it has a legal responsibility to address violence against Native women today. Erasing these reports is a way to attempt to avoid that responsibility

I often hear people describe the Trump administration as “unprecedented,” but Indigenous people have lived through the very things many Americans fear today — censorship, repression, family separation, land seizures, forced assimilation. In this moment of rising fascism, what can the country learn from the long Indigenous struggle against occupation and erasure?

I’ve been having this conversation with friends and family. We should start by acknowledging the real crisis that everyone is facing today. People are right to feel outraged by the attacks on our immigrant neighbors, the separation of families, people being detained arbitrarily by masked men — all of it.

For Native people, as you point out, this isn’t as surprising as it is for other people in the country, because we have lived through forms of colonial violence — separation of families, erasure of our history, suppression of language and culture, political repression — for centuries, and we have nevertheless persisted. I think that is a lesson Native people can bring to the contemporary moment.


“Black and Native communities offer to all of society lessons in perseverance, in saying that we have to fight and we will not be defined by our oppressors.”

People of African descent, whose families and ancestors survived slavery, survived the dispossession of their own bodies and labor, have a lot to teach us in this moment too. Black and Native communities offer to all of society lessons in perseverance, in saying that we have to fight and we will not be defined by our oppressors, but by our ability to resist that oppression, by our ability to form bonds of community in contexts of extreme violence, in contexts where the powers that be are bent on our annihilation. We are still here. We have survived. We are here after hundreds of years.That resilience is a wellspring of courage for this moment.

One example of our resilience and resistance comes from boarding schools themselves. Despite the violence, Native children formed new bonds with one another across tribal nations. They came to see themselves not only as Choctaw or Diné or Wampanoag, but as Indigenous people with shared experiences. Many of the young people who later became activists in the 1960s and ’70s — especially in the American Indian Movement — first forged those connections in boarding schools.

So even in places designed to destroy Indigenous identity, Native youth created solidarity, political consciousness, and resistance. The Thanksgiving story is often used to obscure this history of Native resistance, but that history is precisely what can help people navigate the current crisis.

Schools have always been a site of oppression and struggle for Native people. From racist mascots to sanitized textbooks to cases like the Choctaw high schooler who was recently banned from wearing regalia in his senior portrait — Indigenous students continue to face erasure and discrimination. How do these practices reflect anti-Indigenous racism, and what changes would you like to see in schools?

During the last decade, Indigenous activists made huge gains in removing racist mascots — in public schools and professional sports. Those were victories earned through generations of organizing. But now we’re seeing a backlash. The administration has even pressured the Washington football team to return to its old name. And when I saw the Cleveland baseball team come play in Arizona, I saw fans wearing the old jerseys with the racist caricature.


“Even in places designed to destroy Indigenous identity, Native youth created solidarity, political consciousness, and resistance.”

At the same time, there’s increasing Native representation in the media — shows like “Reservation Dogs” or Sterlin Harjo’s new one, “The Lowdown.” So there’s a contradiction: more representation, but also a resurgence of old racist symbols. Schools need to stand firmly against mascots and stereotypes and instead invite Native people into classrooms to teach from their own cultures, communities, and histories.

Finally, what should replace the sanitized Thanksgiving narrative? And given the backlash, how can teachers tell the truth about Indigenous history while staying as safe as possible, given the attacks on honest educators?

These are dangerous times for educators telling the truth. Teachers need to assess their own situations and do what keeps them safe. But those who have enough security — citizenship, union protection, tenure — should use that privilege to teach the truth.

There are plenty of resources that fit into November’s themes without relying on myths. Teachers can focus on the actual Indigenous nations of their region — their histories, their achievements, their contemporary issues. There are two federally recognized Wampanoag tribes near Plymouth itself that people rarely learn about.

And there are Indigenous practices of giving thanks and expressing gratitude that people can learn, like the Haudenosaunee Thanksgiving Address. I’ve used that address with my own family. One of the beautiful things that Native history and cultural knowledge offer is the notion that we are all in relation with other people and other living beings. That we, as human beings, are in relationship with the earth, the rivers, the oceans, the trees. We have a reciprocal relationship to other living beings around us, including people and the natural world.

That’s something to reflect on and to be grateful for and to cultivate a consciousness around. I think those are the kinds of activities that could replace the Thanksgiving myth with something much more truthful — and practices that would help us nurture a better future, not just a more honest reckoning with the past but a more just and kind future.


This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.


Jesse Hagopian

Jesse Hagopian is a Seattle educator, the director of the Zinn Education Project’s Teaching for Black Lives Campaign, an editor for Rethinking Schools, and the author of the book, Teach Truth: The Struggle for Antiracist Education. You can follow him at IAmAnEducator.com, Instagram, Bluesky or Substack.