Peace President Paradox

Hi Global Recap readers,

Lately I’ve been stuck on one question about the Russia–Ukraine war:

“What does “non-interventionist” actually mean?”

• Is it non-interventionist to stay out of the fighting but still try to broker a peace deal?

• Or is that just another form of intervention?

In the last story today, I walk through my own logic, and I’d love to hear yours in the poll at the end. 👇🏼

🇫🇷 FRANCE
Owens Alleges
Macron Murder Plot

American political commentator Candace Owens has fired off a long assassination claim on X accusing French President Macron and first lady Brigitte Macron of paying to have her killed. She says a "confidential French government source" tipped her off and that she has already warned officials in Washington.

• Allegation: In a late night "urgent" thread on 22 November, Owens told followers that a "high ranking" French civil servant privately informed her that the Macrons had already set an operation in motion to eliminate her, supposedly involving an assassination squad and at least one Israeli participant.

• Price: She later added that there is a $1.5 million bounty on her head, insisting that international bank accounts in France and Canada hold the funds for the job and promising to release names and details in a future update.

• Crossfire: In the same post, Owens folded in the September assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, claiming that the accused gunman had trained with the French Foreign Legion and that his crime formed part of a wider multi-state conspiracy.

• Telegram: Even more shocking, Telegram founder Pavel Durov quote-posted her—saying that her claims about possible French involvement in Charlie Kirk’s assassination were "entirely plausible."

• Feud: Owens and the French first couple have been locked in a public fight after she repeatedly claimed that Brigitte Macron was born male. In July the Macrons filed a defamation suit accusing her of a year long campaign of humiliation.

• Blowback: Commentators across the right and center piled on, calling the thread "batshit crazy," warning that she appears to be having a "psychiatric breakdown in real time," and urging people close to her to get help as the posts went viral.

🇮🇳 INDIA
Arunachal Traveler
Stopped In Shanghai

An Indian citizen from Arunachal Pradesh was held in an 18 hour detention at Shanghai Pudong Airport after Chinese immigration officials claimed her Indian passport was "invalid" because they insist her home state is Chinese territory.

This all ended only after Indian diplomats jumped in from Shanghai, Beijing and New Delhi.

• Incident: Prema Wangjom Thongdok, an Arunachal born Indian who has lived in the UK for about 14 years, was flying from London Gatwick to Japan with a transit stop in Shanghai on 21 November 2025 when officers pulled her out of the queue after she had cleared e-gates.

• Harassment: Officials allegedly pointed at "Arunachal Pradesh" in her passport, told her "Arunachal not India, China China," declared the passport invalid and said she should "apply for a Chinese passport" because she was "not Indian," while airline staff laughed and joined in.

• Isolation: Thongdok says she was held in the airport for more than 18 hours without clear information, struggled to get Wi-Fi, could not use blocked apps like Google and WhatsApp and was repeatedly stopped from boarding her onward flight despite a valid Japanese visa.

• Diplomacy: After she finally reached Indian missions, diplomats in Shanghai, Beijing and New Delhi jumped in. Consular staff in Shanghai backed her on the ground, while missions in Beijing and Delhi lodged protests and pushed Chinese authorities to let her go, calling the detention grounds "ludicrous."

🇻🇪 VENEZUELA
US Plots New
Venezuela Phase

Washington is supposedly gearing up for a new phase of Venezuela-focused operations that could start in the shadows and grow into something far more direct against

• Trigger: The US has now labeled the Venezuelan group Cartel de los Soles a foreign terrorist organization, accusing it of shipping illegal drugs into the U.S. and tying it personally to Maduro, who flatly denies any role.

• Leverage: War Secretary Pete Hegseth says it opens "a whole bunch of new options," from targeting assets inside Venezuela to more aggressive pressure on Maduro’s inner circle, all under the guise of counterterrorism rather than routine counternarcotics.

• Buildup: The Pentagon has stacked the region with hardware, including the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford, at least seven other warships, a nuclear submarine, and F-35 jets, while U.S. forces have already carried out at least 21 strikes on alleged drug boats since September, leaving more than 80 people dead.

• Tactics: U.S. officials say covert moves are likely the first step, with options on the table that explicitly include trying to overthrow Maduro, backed by CIA operations that Trump has already authorized.

• Blowback: The US Federal Aviation Administration has warned airlines about hazards over Venezuela, prompting at least three international carriers to cancel departures.

• Fracture: U.S. Republican Senator Rand Paul warned on Sunday that Trump’s Venezuela escalation could fracture the GOP and even destroy his MAGA movement, saying that "if he invades Venezuela or gives more money to Ukraine, his movement will dissolve."

(This sets up the perfect segue into my thoughts on "non-interventionist policy" below)

🇺🇦 UKRAINE
Trump's Ukraine
Peace Ultimatum

Trump just issued a blunt ultimatum to Ukrainian President Zelenskyy: Accept the U.S.'s peace plan by Thursday or, in Trump's words, "fight his little heart out."

• Ultimatum: Speaking to reporters in Washington on Saturday, Trump tied continued U.S. support for Kyiv to a draft 28-point plan meant to end the Russia-Ukraine war. However, many are criticizing the plan for being largely written by the U.S. and Russia behind closed doors with no formal role for European governments and only limited consultation with Kyiv.

• Terms: The draft would force Ukraine to cede territory to Russia, including parts of Donetsk that Russian forces have not fully conquered, sharply reduce the size of its armed forces, and bar any NATO troops from Ukrainian soil.

• Budapest déjà vu: However, the move is drawing comparisons to the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances (1994), when Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal for "security assurances" that Russia later violated.

  • Many see Trump’s plan as a repeat—another deal imposed from above, demanding Ukrainian concessions now for guarantees that may not hold later.

  • Others argue this is simply how power politics works—there are no rules in war, and unless the West is willing to fight Russia directly, Ukraine’s only options are to concede territory or keep bleeding on the battlefield along with Russians.

• New Plan: Since Trump's remarks, a Ukraine official has confirmed that the original 28-point peace plan has been cut down to 19 points (though which points were dropped remains unclear).

• Europe: On the sidelines of a G20 meeting in Johannesburg, more than a dozen European leaders, including France's Emmanuel Macron and Germany's Friedrich Merz, drew up a counteroffer that keeps Ukraine's military unrestricted and would return control of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, the Kakhovka Dam, Dnieper River passages, and the Kinburn Spit to Kyiv, while stressing that any NATO or EU clauses need approval from member states.

The Peace President Paradox

This whole situation made me realize something: “non-intervention” doesn’t just mean refusing to send weapons or troops. It also means refusing to steer the politics of a foreign war.

• Yet the White House is now deeply involved, trying to broker a peace deal that one side clearly does not want.

• That’s why many online are accusing President Trump of entering the Russia-Ukraine war under the banner of being the "peace president."

Here’s what’s clear:

• Ukraine has no desire to surrender territory it considers rightfully its own.

• Putin can’t walk away without some form of territorial gain after pouring thousands of soldiers into this war.

• If the U.S. truly wants a non-interventionist posture, then the White House wouldn’t be drafting or pushing "peace terms"—especially ones critics say tilt toward Moscow.

• When both sides’ core objectives directly conflict, any third-party attempt to impose terms inevitably means taking a side.

But others counter:

• So many Ukrainians dying, Trump must step in to stop the war.

• That argument openly admits the U.S. is taking an active role in the conflict.

And that’s the core contradiction:

• If the U.S. doesn’t want entanglement, let Europe and Ukraine handle it, and decline weapons requests.

• If the U.S. does want involvement, then own it by providing military support.

• What you can’t do is call political intervention "non-intervention" simply because it doesn’t involve soldiers.

Of course, it’s perfectly reasonable for the U.S. to weigh in and attempt to broker a peace agreement. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Trump is beside the point. The point of contention is this: you can’t call that "non-interventionist" while also claiming that President Trump is actively bringing about peace.

Do you see the contradiction?

📊 Poll