Everywhere Insiders 11: Ukraine, BRICS, Africa, Antisemitism, and the Taliban

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/21

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 August 15, 2025, interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with national security lawyer and geopolitical analyst Irina Tsukerman about global flashpoints. Tsukerman addresses Ukraine’s battlefield stalemate and the underreported impact of Ukrainian strikes on Russian infrastructure, critiques U.S. tariff policy and Brazil’s strategic rise in BRICS, and analyzes instability in Mali, Sudan’s humanitarian crisis, and the global spread of FGM. She discusses rising antisemitism in France, its political and cultural roots, and the Taliban’s increasing international normalization despite entrenched repression and ties to terrorist groups. The conversation highlights how selective media narratives distort public understanding of complex geopolitical realities.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: This is the Everywhere Insiders 11. Our sources today are Associated Press (AP News). We are here once again with the distinguished Irina Tsukerman, a New York-based national security lawyer and geopolitical analyst.

Ukrainian defences are facing challenges. Independent sources confirm that the heaviest pressure is currently in Donetsk and Sumy, where several attacks occurred today. Ahead of the summit, what are your indications about the front line and the war, not focusing on Alaska, which will be covered in another session, but on the present war context?

Irina Tsukerman: It has not been as dramatic as some portray. Russia now controls roughly 20% of Ukrainian territory, down from about 27% in 2022. Its advances through the front lines tend to be temporary. Moscow has been sending waves of troops in costly assaults to break through, plant a flag, take a photo for propaganda purposes, and then retreat or be pushed back. Progress has been minimal. Russia deployed approximately 110,000 troops in recent days, but even officially acknowledged breaches have been minor and quickly reversed.

For propaganda value, however, that is the narrative most people hear—Russia making significant claims. Russian state media, isolationist voices abroad, and so-called “pro-peace” rather than “pro-victory” advocates are portraying these moves as breakthroughs ahead of the summit. In reality, the situation is closer to a stalemate.

Ukraine, meanwhile, has been striking Russian energy infrastructure, including a major oil refinery, causing significant economic disruption. Gasoline prices inside Russia have risen, and there is growing concern among Russian officials because the most recent Ukrainian attack was massive in scale. However, coverage of this has been limited compared to the attention given to Russia’s small territorial gains. In reality, the energy strike was a far more consequential development.

This underreporting is telling. For example, Bloomberg recently ran the headline, “Ukraine Claims Attack on Hub for Major Russian Oil Pipelines.” However, what does “claims attack” mean? Either the facility was struck or it was not. Additional Russian energy assets have been hit in drone attacks—about fifteen in total by some counts. Such vague or cautious reporting obscures the fact that the conflict is neither one-sided nor moving decisively in Russia’s favour.

It remains highly asymmetrical, and success is not always neatly measurable in territory gained. So, who truly has the upper hand?

Jacobsen: Russia temporarily breached the front line but did not get far—or Ukraine, after causing massive damage to Russia’s internal energy infrastructure? This should at least be a matter of discussion and debate, yet it has faded remarkably.

Tsukerman: The positive stories for Ukraine fade almost before they gain traction, while negative stories are amplified tremendously by social media commentators. I do not mean actual defence analysts writing for professional publications; I mean self-declared experts on social media. Many of these people want Russia to be doing better than it is, and I am struggling to understand why. Is it to save face for Trump, who is inviting the leader of a relatively small economy to Alaska to meet with him? Russia’s GDP is smaller than that of some individual U.S. states, which makes the invitation seem absurd.

Yes, Russia has been able to do a great deal with limited resources in terms of spreading propaganda and engaging various actors in sabotage across Europe. However, does that make the country “great” or its head of state worth meeting and honouring with a U.S. visit? I do not think so. Some people are even trying to spin the Alaska visit as a strategic message—”Alaska is ours”—but why would you need to send such a message? Why care what Russian propaganda says?

Equally disturbing is the fact that Russia-linked attack on U.S. federal court systems, yet that incident barely registers in public discourse. Instead, the focus is on Russia breaching the Ukrainian front lines, which is portrayed as a significant development. A sign of what? They have been fighting for three and a half years without achieving strategic success. Occasional tactical gains and setbacks are inevitable in such a conflict, but overall, Russia is not winning.

It is unclear why the media covers the story the way it does, but it is not helping foster a comprehensive understanding of the conflict. Russia is exploiting Trump’s weaknesses, but in reality, it has a weak hand.

One more point on Gaza: the disproportionate coverage is overwhelming.

Jacobsen: Brazil’s President Lula has announced $5.5 billion in credits for exporters hit by U.S. tariffs. What does this tell you about Lula, and what does it indicate about the broader impact of Trump’s tariffs? I am also noting the Q1’s economic contraction in the United States.

Tsukerman: Lula is doing what he needs to do to protect the interests of Brazilian exporters. Trump, meanwhile, is imposing what amounts to an unconstitutional tax on U.S. exporters. Americans are getting hit from both sides—on imports, we pay higher prices due to tariffs; on exports, there is an additional burden. Other countries are also retaliating with tariffs, so U.S. producers are squeezed in every direction.

More broadly, this is troubling because Brazil, despite its economic challenges, is rising as a defence-producing state and playing an increasingly active role in BRICS. Internal BRICS trade volume is now outpacing their collective trade with the BRICS-G7 trade. This does not mean they have surpassed the U.S.—the U.S. remains the world’s leading economy—but the fact that the U.S. is being increasingly excluded from major trade alliances and exchanges is a sign of strategic and economic struggle.

Other countries are now being forced to compensate their producers for losses caused by U.S. tariffs. This is making everyone poorer and contributing to a decline in productivity across the board. That benefits no one. The global economy thrives on robust trade. Trump does not seem to understand that imposing high tariffs—such as on imports of coffee from Brazil—will not help American farmers. We do not grow coffee in the U.S., so the only effect is to make it more expensive for American consumers.

If he had said this was a way to pay down the national debt and that it would be a temporary measure until progress was made, at least that would have been an understandable, if debatable, goal. However, he is not doing that. It is neither temporary nor consistent nor fair in its application, and it is not paying off the debt, because the debt keeps rising, and no one knows where all the revenue is going. Trump has claimed he “made trillions,” but if that is true, I would like to know where it went, given that the U.S. government has had to borrow another $5 trillion in its latest budget.

If the tariff policy is so successful in generating revenue, why are we not seeing the promised results? Moreover, ironically, Brazilian defence companies are investing in American ammunition—something not widely reported because it does not fit the preferred narrative. So why are foreign contractors winning tenders for the production of essential ammunition, while American companies are not stepping up with competitive offers? That is a question worth discussing. However, once again, the media is ignoring it, preferring to promote the Trumpian narrative that “Americans are now producing everything.” That is not true.

Jacobsen: Turning to Africa—Mali’s military rulers have arrested two generals and a suspected French agent, among others, in an alleged coup plot. The accusation is that this was an attempt to destabilize the country. The announcement was made by Mali’s Security Minister, General Daoud Aly Mohammedine, who stated that a full investigation is underway and that the situation is “completely under control.”

Tsukerman: This is the first sign that the situation is not under control. If you need to arrest people for plotting a coup—assuming the coup is real—that shows deeply ingrained dissatisfaction with the way Mali is being run. Moreover, there is genuine cause for concern: jihadist activity across West Africa, especially in the pro-Russian junta bloc that broke away from ECOWAS, has been rising sharply. Jihadists have made significant advances, and Russia has not been effective in stopping them. So there is reason for members of the military to be uneasy about the country’s direction.

If, on the other hand, the coup is fabricated, then the junta’s leadership is simply paranoid. In that case, the question becomes: what are they trying to distract from? The most likely answer is that, even if there is no significant opposition within the armed forces, the economic and security problems are growing. A fabricated coup plot is an effective way to redirect public attention to a manufactured threat, rather than confronting real challenges.

Either way, it is not a good look for Mali. Whether the coup threat is genuine or fictitious, the country appears unstable—despite claims that the situation is “completely under control.”

Other countries are now being forced to compensate their producers for losses caused by U.S. tariffs. This is making everyone poorer and contributing to a decline in productivity across the board. That benefits no one. The global economy thrives on robust trade. Trump does not seem to understand that imposing high tariffs—such as on imports of coffee from Brazil—will not help American farmers. We do not grow coffee in the U.S., so the only effect is to make it more expensive for American consumers.

If he had said this was a way to pay down the national debt and that it would be a temporary measure until progress was made, at least that would have been an understandable, if debatable, goal. However, he is not doing that. It is neither temporary nor consistent nor fair in its application, and it is not paying off the debt, because the debt keeps rising, and no one knows where all the revenue is going. Trump has claimed he “made trillions,” but if that is true, I would like to know where it went, given that the U.S. government has had to borrow another $5 trillion in its latest budget.

If the tariff policy is so successful in generating revenue, why are we not seeing the promised results? Moreover, ironically, Brazilian defence companies are manufacturing American ammunition—something not widely reported because it does not fit the preferred narrative. So why are foreign contractors winning tenders for the production of essential ammunition, while American companies are not stepping up with competitive offers? That is a question worth discussing. However, once again, the media is ignoring it, preferring to promote the Trumpian narrative that “Americans are now producing everything.” That is not true.

Jacobsen: Turning to Africa—Mali’s military rulers have arrested two generals and a suspected French agent, among others, in an alleged coup plot. The accusation is that this was an attempt to destabilize the country. The announcement was made by Mali’s Security Minister, General Daoud Aly Mohammedine, who stated that a full investigation is underway and that the situation is “completely under control.”

Tsukerman: This is the first sign that the situation is not under control. If you need to arrest people for plotting a coup—assuming the coup is real—that shows deeply ingrained dissatisfaction with the way Mali is being run. Moreover, there is genuine cause for concern: jihadist activity across West Africa, especially in the pro-Russian junta bloc that broke away from ECOWAS, has been rising sharply. Jihadists have made significant advances, and Russia has not been effective in stopping them. So there is reason for members of the military to be uneasy about the country’s direction.

If, on the other hand, the coup is fabricated, then the junta’s leadership is simply paranoid. In that case, the question becomes: what are they trying to distract from? The most likely answer is that, even if there is no significant opposition within the armed forces, the economic and security problems are growing. A fabricated coup plot is an effective way to redirect public attention to a manufactured threat, rather than confronting real challenges.

Either way, it is not a good look for Mali. Whether the coup threat is genuine or fictitious, the country appears unstable—despite claims that the situation is “completely under control.”

Jacobsen: Approximately 10 million people are currently internally displaced. 

Tsukerman: Another issue that is not being clearly stated by the UN is that the so-called internationally recognized government has hardly more legitimacy than the rebels—its advantage lies only in the fact that more countries happen to support it. This conflict began between two warlords: one more willing to align with Islamists from the former al-Bashir regime, and the other more willing to align with Russia, assorted mercenaries, and other backers. Officially, the latter is secular, but in reality, both operate on tribal and sectarian lines.

The core problem is that both men seek power for its own sake. They have no regard for human life, no interest in governing the country effectively, and every interest in maintaining their control at any cost. They effectively halted Sudan’s planned transition to an entirely civilian government, plunging the country into further chaos.

The UN should acknowledge that rejecting the rebel government is not enough—it should also cease supporting the official authorities until they stop their abuses and, at the very least, restore humanitarian access to those in need. That access has been deliberately restricted, creating a real and deadly famine inside Sudan.

Both of these generals are extremely destabilizing. 

Jacobsen: On another note, in Gambia, three women have been charged in connection with the death of a one-month-old girl in a female genital mutilation (FGM) case. We can highlight the broader implications of this issue. More than 230 million women and girls worldwide are survivors of FGM, most of them in sub-Saharan Africa, according to UN estimates. In the past eight years alone, some 30 million women globally have been cut—primarily in Africa, but also in Asia and the Middle East. The procedure is typically performed by older women or traditional community practitioners using tools such as razor blades. These cause serious bleeding and can lead to severe complications later in life, particularly during childbirth.

Tsukerman: This is unlikely to improve, given that USAID funding for humanitarian and educational needs in African countries has been reduced to negligible levels. The restructuring of the State Department, which eliminated many positions related to Africa and other critical regions, will also make it harder for the U.S. to lead in combating FGM and advancing women’s and children’s rights.

This creates an opportunity for the rest of the international community to step in—by donating funds, sharing best practices, sending experienced practitioners to educate families, and fostering cultural change. While FGM is sometimes justified on religious grounds, especially by radical groups, it is essentially a cultural and tribal practice.

Some countries, such as Egypt, have made progress through dedicated campaigns. However, in less developed countries with weaker infrastructure, lower education levels, and entrenched tribal customs, the battle is much more difficult. In rural areas with limited internet access, poor public schooling, and little government enforcement of anti-FGM laws, the outcomes are often tragic. Supporting governments in addressing these concerns directly is a critical step toward ending the practice.

Training local community leaders, providing accurate medical information, and educating people is a long and challenging process. It requires dedication, resources, and sustained attention. This problem will not solve itself, in part because of its psychological dimension. Victims of FGM often experience a form of Stockholm Syndrome—they may sympathize with the cultural norms of their community, want to fit in, or fear being ostracized by their families if they do not continue the practice with their daughters.

In such cases, victims can become perpetrators, perpetuating the cycle of oppression. Women in these positions need psychological support and counselling—not solely a law-enforcement response. For children removed from families that refuse education or compliance with government mandates, there must be systems in place to place them with relatives or trusted community members, ensuring they maintain access to their cultural environment and do not become isolated due to outside intervention.

This is a sensitive issue that is also spreading from Africa to Western countries with migrant communities from FGM-practicing regions. Even in places where laws forbid it and police actively track offenders, the practice sometimes continues covertly. Entire underground industries have grown around FGM, with practitioners making money from the procedure. These individuals, along with those who profit from child marriage, have a vested interest in maintaining the practice.

Often, FGM is not an isolated custom—it is intertwined with arranged marriages, child marriages, and, in some cases, the sale of girls to older, wealthier men. The practice is sometimes used to increase a girl’s “value” or dowry in such arrangements. Tackling FGM effectively requires addressing these related cultural practices simultaneously.

Jacobsen: French President Emmanuel Macron has vowed justice after unknown attackers chopped down a tree honouring Ilan Halimi, a murdered Jewish man. Any thoughts?

Tsukerman: The original Ilan Halimi case is horrific enough on its own. Halimi, a young Sephardic Jew, was kidnapped in 2006 by a group calling itself the “Gang of Barbarians.” They targeted him because he was Jewish, assuming that his family must be wealthy. What began as an abduction for ransom turned into a prolonged ordeal in which Halimi was tortured and mutilated before dying from his injuries.

The gang members were unrepentant, and the case epitomized a strain of antisemitism rooted in ignorance, greed, and entrenched stereotypes about Jews and money. Sadly, this was not an isolated incident; other attacks have been motivated by similar prejudices, even against Jews who were not wealthy.

The recent attack on the memorial tree is a disturbing sign that such antisemitism not only persists but is evolving—now targeting the memory of Jewish victims, even when no financial motive exists. This represents pure, unconditional hatred. Finding the culprit may prove difficult without surveillance footage or a repeat offence. However, more concerning than this single act is the broader proliferation of extremism, antisemitism, and fanaticism toward Jews, some of which is embedded in local culture.

Some of this antisemitism is rooted in politics, with radical left and radical correct elements aligning. Some stems from extremist versions of religion being tolerated or proliferating both in mass gatherings and online. Some is less about religion and more about ingrained antisemitic attitudes and a lack of education among children and young people in cloistered communities, whether recent migrants or their descendants.

All of it is alarming because no matter how many financial resources are devoted to the problem, without sending a clear message that such attitudes will not be tolerated, little will change. The French government does not appear to have a clear strategy for dealing with the social and cultural spread of antisemitism and the propaganda fueling it. There is an unwillingness to confront specific subgroups where these attitudes are particularly prevalent.

While the general education system may not promote antisemitism, children from such communities return home each day to hear other messaging from family and peers. The real challenge is working with families to remove hatred from within communities and to make violence against Jews not just illegal but socially taboo.

So far, there has been no effective answer and not enough pushback. Beyond vandalism like cutting down a memorial tree, there are physical attacks, intimidation, and harassment against people for being Jewish, for speaking Hebrew, or simply for being perceived as Israeli. These incidents happen often enough that the perpetrators feel emboldened to target individuals or couples they see as vulnerable. That is a fundamental problem requiring more than occasional arrests—it demands a complete rethinking of how social integration is handled in France.

Jacobsen: As of today, the Taliban has begun its fifth year in power. Thoughts on this—not exactly a happy occasion from our perspective?

Tsukerman: I am surprised that Trump and Pompeo—who played a key role in bringing the Taliban to power—have not offered public congratulations, as they have in other cases, such as Trump’s remarks about Lukashenko after their call. On the plus side for the Taliban, they are now demanding that an embassy be opened in Washington. So far, they have not succeeded, and their lobbying efforts face significant challenges. Still, the fact that they have become as normalized internationally as they have—not just by this administration—is troubling.

They offer access to resources, oil and gas, strategic economic corridors, and valuable gemstones, which are difficult to extract without foreign involvement. Because of these economic considerations, many countries are increasingly willing to do business with the Taliban, overlooking their gross human rights violations and public ties to al-Qaeda. Russia has taken the lead in politically normalizing them—first removing their terrorist designation, then engaging with them in forums on education and business, and eventually recognizing them publicly. This is ironic given that the Taliban originally emerged fighting Soviet forces.

Russia is not alone; other countries are also engaging. Even India is reaching out, though it remains far from full normalization. I expect the number of countries granting the Taliban at least provisional recognition to increase. There is no willpower to dislodge them from power, and the Afghan opposition movements abroad have been ineffective. Some are corrupt, some fail to understand the political landscape, and others waste energy fighting among themselves for recognition.

For now, the Taliban is firmly entrenched in power, with no visible pathway to change. More concerning is that they are not confining themselves to Afghanistan while building international legitimacy—they are also providing political and possibly logistical support to terrorist organizations. They have coordinated with the Houthis in Yemen, engaged with al-Qaeda, had tactical relations with ISIS-K in Afghanistan, and even communicated with Hamas. Russian military advisers are allegedly training Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters in camps across the country, suggesting an ambition to integrate into a broader Islamist jihadist network over time.

For now, their focus remains on the economy and international legitimacy, but their hardline policies on women and other issues have only grown more entrenched. There has been no moderation—if anything, their rule has become more repressive.

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.