Everywhere Insiders 21: Irina Tsukerman on Media Power, COP30, Prince Andrew, Tanzania

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/05

Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee.

In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Tsukerman discusses democratic backsliding, climate diplomacy, royal accountability, and African crisis responses. She frames Indamedia’s purchase of Ringier Hungary, including tabloid Blikk, as part of Viktor Orbán’s long campaign to dominate media through consolidation and pressure on critics, extending influence beyond Hungary. On COP30, she expects limited U.S. participation under Trump, arguing large climate summits underdeliver and bilateral or smaller deals may work better. She welcomes King Charles’s move against Prince Andrew amid Epstein fallout and potential security concerns. Regarding Tanzania’s protest deaths, she criticizes toothless Western “concern,” urging consequences and dedicated follow-through.

Interview conducted October 31, 2025, in the afternoon Pacific Time.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Welcome back to Everywhere Insiders! A pro-Orbán media group has bought Hungary’s main tabloid. This is immediately prior to the 2026 election. In Budapest, the media group — Indamedia, which is co-owned by pro-government businessman Miklós Vaszily and Gábor Ziegler — has purchased a portfolio that includes Hungary’s main tabloid newspaper, Blikk. The headline is a little misleading because it’s not just a targeted purchase; it’s a portfolio acquisition that happens to include the tabloid. General elections are in April for Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. He is being challenged by a center-right opposition party, Tisza, led by Péter Magyar, which is leading in most polls.

Indamedia co-owner and CEO Gábor Ziegler stated, “Through the acquisition of Ringier Hungary, the group is gaining a well-performing media company of similar size to Indamedia, with strong market positions and successful brands that play a defining role in the Hungarian media landscape.” Based on the public statements, if taken at face value, this appears to be a media acquisition aimed at expanding market presence — not necessarily a political move. Any thoughts on this?

Irina Tsukerman: This is not something new for Orbán. He has been consolidating his power for many years using precisely this strategy. On one hand, he seeks to monopolize popular media, whether in print or on video; on the other, he uses regulatory and financial pressure that raises costs for competitors and critics. He has tried to avoid directly shutting down competing private channels because he does not want to be accused of being undemocratic. Still, it is clearly a cynical use of government power to centralize control over major media channels and to squeeze anyone who might expose or criticize his approach.

What people often fail to realize is that his methods are not limited to Hungary’s borders. Euronews was acquired in 2022 by Alpac Capital, a Portuguese fund whose CEO is linked to a close adviser to Orbán; investigations have raised concerns about the deal’s financing and potential influence, though Euronews states it operates independently. Following the takeover, the network shifted headquarters toward Brussels and underwent restructuring, which prompted further scrutiny.

Jacobsen: The United States will not be sending high-level federal officials to the COP30 climate talks in Belém, Brazil (November 6–21, 2025), according to public reporting and statements; this aligns with the administration’s broader skepticism toward multilateral climate forums.

One thing that may be less widely known: the U.S. recently threatened visa restrictions and sanctions targeting countries that vote for an International Maritime Organization proposal to cut greenhouse-gas emissions from global shipping — a sector responsible for roughly 3% of global emissions. The warning framed the plan as an “unsanctioned global tax” and floated dock-access limits for ships from supporting nations.

I underestimated how much super-freighters cost in terms of carbon credits. So this is very much in line with that. Any thoughts on COP30 and the backtracking of the United States?

Tsukerman: That does not surprise me, particularly since the Trump administration has been skeptical of multilateral arrangements, especially those related to climate policy. That is not to say that Trump himself has been opposed to all forms of clean energy. In fact, he has viewed some of them as investment opportunities — particularly nuclear — aligning with a broader international trend. Still, he sees these sorts of international gatherings as a waste of time and money. To be fair, he is not entirely wrong in that regard, especially when it comes to the COP series of events. 

There has been skepticism even among the hosts and participants, whether because some of the Biden administration’s pledges at those events have never materialized as promised, or because the events were, on occasion, mismanaged, or because the costs and the related climate arrangements ended up being substantially higher than the pledges associated with them.

Reaching consensus has become increasingly difficult because developing countries feel burdened by many of the priorities set by wealthier Western nations. There are still major disagreements over priorities, goals, and enforcement. There has also been a growing unwillingness to pledge substantial sums of money toward projects that are speculative, difficult to measure, or hard to enforce.

In general, these large global climate gatherings have generated more irony and skepticism than genuine commitment or action. Countries concerned about the impact of climate change can act independently or through bilateral and smaller agreements to provide aid where it is needed. There is a sense that trying to bring together states with vastly divergent goals and problems into a single decision-making structure is bound to backfire — because inevitably, some nations will be forced to accept burdens unrelated to their own situations, while others will bear disproportionate financial costs.

I’m not surprised that much of this is falling apart. Do I think Trump’s withdrawal of the U.S. from participation will have a huge impact beyond symbolism? I don’t think so. First, everyone has been expecting it. Second, as I mentioned, the Biden administration did not deliver much of the funding it had promised, so the U.S. was not a particularly impactful player except in words and rhetoric. And third, there are so many other problems that have nothing to do with U.S. participation that it will likely be overshadowed by broader concerns regardless.

Jacobsen: It is noteworthy that King Charles has stripped his younger brother, Andrew, of his title and enforcement rights at the Windsor home, according to a report from Buckingham Palace. This follows years of controversy and alleged association with Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes and related misconduct. It’s interesting that it took family intervention and decisive action for accountability where standard jurisprudence failed many legitimate victims of Epstein and others. Any thoughts?

Tsukerman: There are a few reasons why this is happening now, and how it all came together. First, the timing is not coincidental. This is unfolding just as Virginia Giuffre’s posthumous memoir is being released, bringing renewed public scrutiny. The combination of new publicity and the Epstein-related controversy in the United States has put Prince Andrew — or former Prince Andrew — back in the spotlight.

Second, other scandals are compounding the controversy because Andrew was also linked to questionable interactions with a suspected Chinese spy, raising questions about whether he was compromising national security at the same time.

Third, the growing role of Prince William, who has naturally assumed greater prominence as the Prince of Wales, is also shaping how the monarchy manages internal scandals. His influence represents a generational shift toward stricter accountability and image management, which may explain why the Palace acted more decisively this time.

Tsukerman: Prince William therefore has more weight within the royal family and is able to exert greater influence. He was likely dissatisfied with how the situation was handled previously, but now he has both the means and the authority to push for stronger internal measures — if only to prevent further controversy for the family, if not to advance justice for the victims of Epstein’s trafficking network. That is certainly a contributing factor.

That said, this does not mean there aren’t other measures coming. Precisely because Andrew has been stripped of his titles, he is now facing a kind of private investigation or prosecution within the United Kingdom that likely would not have been possible when he still enjoyed the protection of royal status. Now, the royal family will not shield him.

It will be easier to pursue legal action against him. Another factor is that it is entirely possible Andrew acted in collaboration with other former or then-contemporary U.K. government officials who were part of the Epstein network. There is also an effort to shield not just the Royal Family but the U.K. government itself from further scandal.

We know that a former U.K. ambassador to the United States was recently removed after revelations of his alleged connection to the network. It’s surprising that Prime Minister Starmer claimed he did not know about this when he appointed him, given that the scandal was not new. Regardless, there appears to be an effort to contain the fallout and limit how far this scandal spreads.

New revelations have also emerged about Sarah Ferguson’s possible involvement and even about Andrew and Sarah’s daughters potentially being beneficiaries of Epstein-linked financial connections. There has been a deliberate effort to protect the daughters from scandal; they are retaining their royal titles.

So there are several factors at play in why this has come together now. Is Andrew getting exactly what he deserves, or is he serving as a scapegoat for other corrupt elites? That is a reasonable question — but it is still positive that someone is finally being held accountable, especially after so many years of cynically abusing privilege, not to benefit humanity as he claimed, but to exploit vulnerable people and flaunt his protection from legal and political scrutiny.

Jacobsen: Reuters reports that Tanzanian opposition groups are alleging that around a hundred people have been killed in vote-related protests. The United Nations has called for a probe.

The U.N. Secretary-General has urged an investigation into allegations of excessive use of force. Credible reports indicate at least ten people were killed, though estimates vary, with some suggesting the toll could reach the lower end of double digits. The foreign ministers of Britain, Canada, and Norway issued a joint statement expressing concern.

Tsukerman: I love when they do that because it’s always so useful. Some of these officials just seem to issue statements for decoration — to hang on the wall. 

Jacobsen: Still, this bears repeating. I’ve tried not to overstate this before, but I think it’s appropriate to critique the West — though that criticism should come with some necessary caveats.

Jacobsen: I gave a presentation to a peace school — it’s a sort of humanistic education program, a humanist school operating out of Toronto and Iran. In Iran, of course, it’s unregistered, but they have several  hundred students. During that talk, I received a question about the West and the so-called Third World.

We throw around terms like “East” and “West,” “Third World” and “First World,” which raises the question — what exactly is the “Second World”? People try to update the language to sound more neutral: “developing” and “developed,” or “developing” and “more developing,” depending on their ideological stance.

My point in that Q&A session was that terms like “East” and “West,” even geographically, don’t make much sense. For instance, Korea and Japan are considered part of the “West,” yet depending on your reference point, that’s arbitrary. 

Tsukerman: My favorite example is when people call Morocco part of the “Middle East,” even though it’s west of London.

Jacobsen: The point was that mass communication, as Marshall McLuhan discussed, and massive international travel since the Wright brothers have completely changed traditional frameworks. Definitional and geopolitical drift have further blurred those old distinctions. These terms can still be useful as conceptual placeholders, but we have to take them case by case.

When the West expresses “concern,” it often feels symbolic — and symbolism only matters when a society already has stable infrastructure. If you lack water, housing, and food, you don’t need “letters of concern.” 

Tsukerman: Symbolic statements are for ambiguity; when facts are clear — for example, when there’s deadly force used against peaceful protesters — expressions of concern are hollow. In those cases, there should be consequences, not just concern.

Jacobsen: So yes, changing the terms is well intentioned, and critiques are understandable. Yet I think we’re all confused about how we use these terms in a globalized world. The physicist Michio Kaku often references the Kardashev Scale, a framework proposed by Nikolai Kardashev to classify civilizations by their energy use. Carl Sagan once estimated humanity’s level at about 0.7 — not yet planetary. I think both are correct: we’re an emergent global civilization, and these old categories will make less sense as we progress — if we make it that far. 

Anyway, given this Tanzanian situation — the death toll, the alleged abuse of power, and the excessive use of force — what’s your analysis?

Tsukerman: It’s very clear that countries are being pulled in different directions by multiple, competing priorities. Domestically, the United Kingdom and Germany are both under significant political pressure. In Europe more broadly, there are serious security concerns stemming from Russia, as well as multiple ongoing conflicts — the war in Ukraine, continuing hostilities and controversy over Gaza, and Sudan, where there are horrifying allegations of genocide, including the recently documented massacre of civilians in a hospital by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).

All of these crises demand substantial attention and resources. So when serious but more localized incidents occur — such as election violence in Tanzania — they’re often deprioritized compared to conflicts that pose global risks or directly affect Western security interests. It’s unfortunate, but not surprising.

What is particularly troubling is that, when it comes to African countries, there doesn’t seem to be any serious global task force or even dedicated government desks that take these crises beyond the “statement” phase into meaningful follow-up. Western diplomacy has become increasingly transactional — focused more on trade, stability, and conflict avoidance than on using diplomatic leverage to pressure authoritarian regimes or combat corruption and democratic backsliding.

There are not sufficient dedicated resources or specialized task forces — whether through coordinated international efforts, regional blocs, or individual nations — to follow up on critical crises in African countries, such as the one we’re discussing.

These incidents may not have long-term consequences, but they could. They might indicate that the opposition itself is prone to violence, or they might reveal that the government is mishandling the protests. Regardless, when there is even a significant likelihood that hundreds of people have been injured or killed following an election, it is deeply troubling.

European countries are increasingly recognizing Africa’s importance — whether in terms of access to critical minerals, counterterrorism cooperation, the global economy, or human capital in innovation and technology. It’s therefore very unfortunate that, despite this awareness, the West’s response continues to be limited to toothless statements — with no investigative authority, no follow-up mechanism, and no coherent strategy for support or accountability.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Irina. 

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.