By Mark Episkopos, Responsible Statecraft, 3/31/25

Alexander Vindman’s recent book, “The Folly of Realism,”throws down the gauntlet, as the name suggests, at the “realists” he thinks were responsible for failing to deter Russia and seize opportunities for defense cooperation with Ukraine.

According to Vindman, the former National Security Council official who testified against President Trump during his impeachment trial in 2019, this “realist” behavior incentivized Moscow’s continued imperialist predations, culminating in the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Vindman’s proposed antidote to what he considers the lapses of the past three decades is Benjamin Tallis’ framework of “neo-idealism,” a lightly repackaged menagerie of post-Cold War transatlanticism’s greatest hits that is bizarrely presented as a novel outlook on the international system.

Fully squaring all the historical misjudgments presented in these 240 pages demands an exegesis of at least as many pages, and not just because there are so many — though one certainly doesn’t find themselves pressed for material — but because Vindman’s central arguments flow from larger, decades-long narratives about Russia and post-Cold War U.S. policy that simply do not stand up to scrutiny.

Nuclear policy emerges as one of the main causal drivers of Vindman’s story. No one can quarrel with the proposition that successive administrations took seriously the cause of nonproliferation in the post-Soviet sphere — they had every reason to — and that nuclear concerns shaped U.S. engagement with the Russian Federation to a significant even if not decisive degree.

But to suggest, as Vindman does, that the thrust of early U.S./NATO policy toward Russia boils down to nuclear concerns is to lapse into a narrowly tendentious reading of events that history doesn’t lend itself to.

Vindman, who interviewed the officials involved in negotiating the 1994 Budapest Memorandum from the U.S. side, was careful not to retread the solecisms so heartily indulged by many of his allies and fellow travelers. He concedes, and not insignificantly so considering how deeply this narrative has entrenched itself in recent years, that the signed memorandum did not contain U.S. security guarantees to Ukraine in exchange for relinquishing its supposed nuclear arsenal.

“There’s no question in my memory and in my mind that the Ukrainians understood completely the difference between security assurances and Article 5 security guarantees. And they understood they were getting security assurances,” Vindman quoted Nicholas Burns, Senior Director for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia Affairs at the National Security Council, as saying.

These assurances, as I explained with my colleague Zach Paikin, did not commit the U.S. to undertake any specific commitments beyond what it agreed to in previous treaties. Indeed, it’s precisely because the memorandum was not legally binding and contained no concrete defense commitments that it did not have to be ratified by the Senate, as all treaties must be.

But this whole “denuclearization” business calls for a greater degree of technical scrutiny than Vindman affords it. Three of the 15 states that emerged from the Soviet collapse — Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus — did not in fact “inherit” thousands of nuclear weapons. These were Soviet nuclear weapons, stationed across the Soviet Union but controlled from Moscow. After the Soviet collapse, these became Soviet nuclear weapons left over on the territories of former Soviet soviet states.

It was never established that Ukraine exercised legal, political, or operational control over these weapons, nor that the nascent Ukrainian state disposed of the considerable resources required to maintain them. Ukraine did not, in this sense, possess a nuclear inheritance that could be bartered away for Western security guarantees or anything else.

What we have before us, then, is not a geostrategic question but a largely operational challenge of removing these weapons, to which Ukraine had no recognized claim, from Ukrainian territory in an orderly way. This rather unremarkable process, though unquestionably a major part of the story of 1990s U.S.-Russia relations, is lent a degree of long-term political significance by Vindman that it simply doesn’t deserve.

So, what, then, is the larger picture and how does it fit into Vindman’s argument that the West’s woes stem from a decades-long policy of, if not appeasing, then at least turning a blind eye to “Russian ambition and exceptionalism?”

One cannot help but escape the sense that Vindman’s story suffers from the plight of Alexander the Great, who wept that he had only one world to conquer. His analysis is strongly tinted by the endless, yet strategically vacuous, expressions of goodwill, optimism about Russia’s Western path, and other such millenarian effusions that characterized U.S.-Russia relations up to the mid-2000’s.

But in the most important ways, U.S. policy has been guided all along by something quite similar to Vindman’s neo-idealism. The Soviet collapse gave Western leaders a generational opportunity to go about the difficult but necessary task of building a new security architecture that includes mechanisms not just to deter Russia, but also to engage it in ways that do not lead to security spirals in Eastern Europe. U.S. policymakers, less driven by balance of power concerns than they were enchanted by the seductive vision of a Europe “whole and free,” brushed aside the concerns of George Kennan, Robert McNamara, and a great many others to greenlight the limitless expansion of NATO, an alliance explicitly arrayed against the Russian Federation’s Soviet predecessor.

It seems to be a source of consternation for Vindman that Ukraine was not invited into NATO in those early days. Vindman’s implication that Ukraine was thus abandoned to Russia’s sphere of influence incorrectly frames the problem at hand. Washington’s fervid devotion to NATO’s “open door” membership policy and dogged refusal to countenance any framework for delimiting NATO’s boundaries shows that the lack of progress in this area was purely tactical in nature and certainly not grounded in systemic realist thinking.

There is also the peccadillo of democratic values, defense of which is supposed to be NATO’s entire raison d’être. In point of fact, polling shows most Ukrainians had no desire to join the alliance until as late as the mid 2010s, when it became impossible due to outstanding territorial conflicts with Russia.

Vindman’s indictment of what he wants the reader to believe passes for “realism” — more on that shortly — hinges on viewing Russia as an innate aggrandizer emboldened by the failure of successive U.S. administrations to deter it.

It all falls apart upon the most basic attempt at a more sophisticated structural analysis — one which would find that Russia’s behavior is consistent not with a grand strategy of conquest for its own sake but with what most realists would identify as balancing behavior in response to the eastward expansion of Western military and security institutions into the post-Soviet sphere, and Russian actions intended to preemptively deny such expansion.

Trudging through this book, with its unique blend of endless encyclopedic tedium heaped on top of the analytical equivalent of a children’s pop-up story, can be best likened to navigating a swamp that’s shallow yet impossibly vast. But this rather unpleasant journey at least gives the reader ample time to meditate on the book’s central conceit.

Vindman unfortunately displays a woefully inadequate grasp of that which he tries to impugn: at no point does he demonstrate anything more than a cursory understanding of realist approaches to the issues he tries to elucidate.

One is left grasping in vain for any evidence that Vindman can pass the simple theoretical Turing Test of explaining any school of realism — let alone to distinguish between them — to the satisfaction of a realist. But Vindman’s underlying thrust is not to meaningfully engage with realist arguments on Ukraine’s post-Soviet transition, 1990’s U.S.-Russia relations, or nuclear proliferation in the former Soviet sphere.

Instead he wants to launder what has largely been an idealist, atlanticist handling of these issues since 1991 by pinning the neoconservatives’ manifold sins and lapses on a haphazard cluster of ideas and approaches clumsily christened by him as “realism.” There was no realism in the strategically shortsighted decision — condemned by many realists at the time — to enable successive waves of NATO expansion and encourage, against genuine U.S. and European security interests, the integration of post-Soviet states into the West’s collective defense umbrella.

The well-established idealist framing of American engagement with competitors as a manichean confrontation between democracy and autocracy is anathema to realism and, indeed, to a healthy understanding of U.S. national security priorities.

But it is true that actual realist ideas are rapidly making their way back into the foreign policy discourse after decades in the wilderness. As is always the case after an exiled intellectual movement rediscovers the levers of power, there will and should be a vigorous debate on what form these ideas will take when filtered through the vicissitudes of American politics and applied to the pressing challenges of our time, including the Russia-Ukraine war and the broader task of building a sustainable architecture of European security.

And whatever missteps are made along the way pale in comparison to a disastrous status quo that can be described by many names. Realism, it is not.

RT, 4/11/25

The discussions between Russian President Vladimir Putin and White House special envoy Steve Witkoff on Friday involved “aspects of the settlement of the Ukraine conflict,” the Kremlin has announced, declining to provide further details.

Witkoff visited Russia on Friday and met with Putin in St. Petersburg. The meeting lasted over four hours and the content of the talks has been largely kept under wraps by Moscow and Washington.

However, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt addressed the issue during a press briefing earlier in the day when asked by a reporter about the purpose of Witkoff’s visit to Russia.

According to Leavitt, the visit was aimed at facilitating direct US communications with the Kremlin as part of a broader effort to negotiate a ceasefire and eventual peace agreement in the Ukraine conflict.

The Trump administration faced growing internal divisions this week after Witkoff allegedly proposed a ceasefire plan that would recognize Russian control over four eastern regions claimed by both Moscow and Kiev, Reuters reported on Friday citing anonymous sources.

During a White House meeting with President Donald Trump last week, Witkoff argued that recognizing Russian ownership of Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson was the swiftest path to halting the war, the outlet’s sources said. General Keith Kellogg, Trump’s Ukraine envoy, reportedly pushed back, stressing Ukraine would not accept full territorial concessions.

White House explains purpose of envoy’s Russia visitREAD MORE: White House explains purpose of envoy’s Russia visit

The meeting reportedly concluded without a decision from Trump, who has repeatedly said he wants to broker a ceasefire by May. Witkoff subsequently traveled to Russia on Friday for talks with Putin.

The episode has deepened rifts within the Trump administration, as officials debate how to resolve the Ukraine conflict, Reuters wrote. Witkoff’s approach, previously outlined in a March interview with Tucker Carlson, has reportedly alarmed both Republican lawmakers and US allies.

“They’re Russian-speaking,” Witkoff told Carlson of the eastern territories. “There have been referendums where the overwhelming majority of the people have indicated that they want to be under Russian rule.”

Several Republicans reportedly contacted National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio to raise concerns about Witkoff’s stance, criticizing him for echoing Russian rhetoric.

A recent dinner with Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev, who until recently was under US sanctions, further stirred controversy. Originally planned at Witkoff’s home, it was moved to the White House after security concerns were raised.

Despite criticism, Witkoff retains strong backing from Trump and some administration officials. Waltz praised his efforts, citing his business background and recent diplomatic activity, including securing the release of US citizen Marc Fogel from Russia.

By Brian McDonald, Twitter, 3/17/25

Trump’s decision to dismantle Voice of America and RFERL isn’t some grand Kremlin conspiracy—it’s basic housecleaning. 🧹These outlets were supposed to serve U.S. foreign policy interests, but instead, they became ideological echo chambers that alienated their target audiences and undermined Washington’s own strategic objectives.. 🤦‍♂️

Look at the website of their parent body, the
@USAGMgov
, and it says that these outlet’s activities must “be consistent with the broad foreign policy objectives of the United States.” But they have not been for some time now.

Once upon a time, American-funded media broadcast messages of freedom, prosperity, and shared values, convincing millions behind the Iron Curtain that the West offered a better future.🇺🇸✨That was the point—soft power at its most effective. But fast-forward to today, and what do we see?

Instead of fostering goodwill or even basic engagement, these media turned into hyper-woke culture war machines, promoting “decolonization” narratives, gender ideology, and separatist movements that have zero appeal to ordinary Russians.🇷🇺 Instead of making a case for the West, they told Russians that their culture was inherently oppressive, that their literary greats were villains, and that their national identity needed to be dismantled. 👎

Rather than persuading Russians that better ties with America were possible, they actively pushed Moscow and Beijing closer together.🇷🇺🤝🇨🇳 Imagine the absurdity: U.S. foreign policy has been trying to negotiate with Russia, while its own government-funded broadcasters is telling Russians that their entire history was toxic and needs to be erased. You don’t need to be a foreign policy genius to see how self-defeating that is.🙃

Worse still, these outlets didn’t just lose the plot—they went rogue. 😵‍💫 They gave platforms to outright separatists and extremists, advocated for the breakup of Russia, and churned out narratives that had nothing to do with America’s interests and everything to do with the obsessions of an unaccountable media class.

A U.S. propaganda machine that once helped win the Cold War🏆 ended up hijacked by activists who were more interested in lecturing Russians about transgender rights than in actually advancing U.S. diplomacy.🏳️‍⚧️🤡

So why were these outlets axed? Simple.✅ They had completely abandoned their mission. The U.S. government doesn’t need to pay for expensive media networks that do nothing but inflame tensions, sabotage diplomatic efforts, and alienate the very people they were meant to reach.🚫

Trump’s move isn’t a “gift to Putin”—it’s a much-needed correction.🔥 I If America wants to regain influence, it needs to stop funding ideological vanity projects that serve no purpose other than making their own staff feel morally superior.

By Uriel Araujo, InfoBrics, 4/11/25

Uriel Araujo, PhD, anthropology researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts

Bohdan Krotevych, a notorious former Ukrainian commander and ex-chief of staff of the far-right Azov Brigade, has publicly called for the removal of General Oleksandr Syrskyi, Ukraine’s armed forces commander, accusing him of endangering soldiers’ lives with “borderline criminal” orders and outdated tactics, the Guardian reports.

Krotevych, who resigned in February (allegedly to speak freely), criticized Syrskyi for micromanaging the military and issuing directives that force troops to rest dangerously close to the front lines, such as 50 meters away, rather than in safer rear areas. He argues that Syrskyi’s lack of strategic innovation—relying on throwing more troops into battles or withdrawing them only when overwhelmed—has contributed to Ukraine’s losses in 2024 and 2025, including advances by Russian forces in Donbas and Kursk.

Although Krotevych is known to have in the past also reported General Yuri Sodol to the State Bureau of Investigation for “incompetent command”, the Guardian article highlights in fact a quite rare public and rather scandalous dissent from within Ukraine’s military ranks, shifting some blame for recent battlefield setbacks from external factors—like Russia’s numerical superiority—to internal leadership failures. Krotevych’s outspokenness underscores broader frustrations with Syrskyi, who has been criticized for his tactics since taking command in February 2024, despite earlier successes like the Kharkiv counteroffensive.

General Syrskyi is a four-star general and the Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces since February 8, 2024. He has played key roles in the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian conflict, commanding the Kharkiv counteroffensive in 2022 as well as the Bakhmut one in 2023. Known for his strategic acumen, he has been both praised in Ukraine for battlefield successes and criticized for high-casualty tactics, earning nicknames like “General 200.”

Bohdan Krotevych, the whistleblower, in turn is a infamous figure in Ukraine’s military landscape, recognized for his role as a former commander and chief of staff of the Azov Brigade, a unit within the National Guard of Ukraine. Krotevych joined Azov in 2014 following Crimea’s status referendum and annexation to Russia.

The Azov Brigade itself, originally formed as a volunteer battalion in 2014, has been widely controversial due to its ties to far-right and neo-Nazi elements. Founded by neo-Nazi Andriy Biletsky, a figure with a documented history in ultra-nationalist and white supremacist circles, the unit has attracted individuals with extremist views from the very start.

Western media and analysts, including pre-2022 reports from CNN, Time etc, have noted and reported Azov’s neo-Nazi affiliations, though its integration into Ukraine’s National Guard and its role in fighting Russia have apparently shifted its public image (in the West at least) toward that of just a disciplined military force. Although the frequent appearance of Nazi swastikas and other such symbols on the uniforms of Azov’s soldiers (sometimes caught on live TV) remains an embarrassment.

Krotevych’s own far-right connections have been scrutinized. Critics point to his recommendation of a memoir by Albert Kesselring, a Nazi war criminal, to Azov recruits. He also took part in the 2014 Maidan coup as a member of the Right Sector—a radical nationalist group with far-right ultra-nationalist roots.

When accused of having political ambitions, Krotevych has been explicitly distancing himself from any alignment with Ukraine’s ambassador to the UK, Valerii Zaluzhnyi. Four-star General Zaluzhnyi, by the way, is General Oleksandr Syrskyi’s predecessor, viewed as a possible future contender for the presidency of Ukraine.

Zaluzhnyi, too, has been under scrutiny for far-right connections. He was photographed in front of a portrait of Stepan Bandera, the controversial Ukrainian nationalist figure, in a post shared by Ukraine’s parliament on X in January 2023 to mark Bandera’s birthday. The image sparked significant controversy, particularly in Poland, due to Bandera’s historical ties to ultra-nationalist groups and Nazi collaboration during World War II, involving the ethnic cleansing of Poles and Jews, as documented by historians such as Timothy Snyder. This remains a major issue with Polish-Ukrainian relations, as I’ve written. All of that is business as usual in post-2014 Ukraine.

It is true Krotevych’s resignation and outspokenness could suggest personal bias or a settling of scores (or political goals). His claims however do make sense. They resonate with some soldiers and analysts who have long criticized General Syrskyi’s “Soviet-style” approach, earning him monikers like “the Butcher” among detractors for high casualty rates, notably during the battle of Bakhmut in 2023.

As a former Azov Brigade commander with frontline experience, Krotevych has firsthand knowledge of combat operations and leadership dynamics, which should lend some weight to his operational critiques. Moreover, his specific examples, like the proximity of rest zones to combat lines, are plausible given documented reports of Ukraine’s strained resources and Syrskyi’s emphasis on holding ground at all costs. It was seen in Bakhmut, where Ukraine suffered heavy losses before withdrawing.

Independent analyses, such as those from military observers in Western media, have similarly noted Syrskyi’s preference for grinding, manpower-intensive tactics over maneuver warfare, which aligns with Krotevych’s charge of strategic stagnation.

Far-right extremism and corruption aside, the fact is that, despite billions in aid, Ukraine’s armed forces grapple with deep-rooted issues, from resource strains to criticized leadership tactics. And Washington has, as I wrote, even in September 2024, largely shifted this burden to Europe, and European leaders barely seem willing to shoulder it.

At this rate, the West’s proxy war in Ukraine against Moscow risks becoming Europe’s “Vietnam”—a prolonged, costly quagmire.

By Alan McLeod, Mintpress News, 3/25/25

A far-right, pro-Israel group with a history of support for terror and genocide is working closely with the Trump administration, preparing dossiers on thousands of pro-Palestine figures it wants deported from the United States.

Betar U.S. is known to have had several meetings with senior government officials and has claimed credit for the arrest and detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a leader of the nationwide anti-genocide student demonstrations that began at Columbia University last year.

Ross Glick, the group’s executive director until last month, noted that he met with a diverse set of influential lawmakers, including Democratic Sen. John Fetterman and aides to Republican Senators Ted Cruz and James Lankford, and that all supported Betar U.S.’ campaign to rid the country of thousands of “terror supporters.”

Shortly after Glick’s trip to Washington, D.C., Trump signed an executive order titled “Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism” that promises “the removal of resident aliens who violate our laws,” to “quell pro-Hamas vandalism and intimidation” and to “investigate and punish anti-Jewish racism in leftist, anti-American colleges and universities.”

Trump himself announced that Khalil’s arrest, which made worldwide headlines, was “the first of many to come.”

“We know there are more students at Columbia and other Universities across the country who have engaged in pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity, and the Trump administration will not tolerate it,” he wrote on Truth Social.

The 45th and 47th president has also stated that he plans to deport “Communists” and “Marxists” from the United States, even those who are citizens. As such, this marks an escalation in government-backed suppression of dissent not seen since the McCarthyist era of the 1940s and 1950s.

Carrying Out Terror, Supporting Genocide

Glick in 2012. (Iryna Kremin/Flickr/CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Betar U.S. describes itself as a “loud, proud, aggressive and unapologetically Zionist” movement “dedicated to defending Israel’s legitimacy and strengthening the Jewish connection to the land of Israel.” This includes “taking action where others won’t” — a rather ominous phrase, considering the aggressive activities of the Jewish organizations it derides as “passive” and weak.

Last week, the group appeared to openly attempt to organize an assassination attempt on Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories. “Join us to give Francesca a [pager emoji] in London on Tuesday,” it posted online, an apparent reference to the September pager attack on  Lebanon carried out by the Israeli military.

The incident killed dozens of people and injured thousands more civilians, and was widely condemned — even by former C.I.A. Director Leon Panetta — as an act of international terrorism.

Last month, Betar U.S. made a similar threat against Jewish-American writer Peter Beinart. After The New York Times published his article criticizing the State of Israel, Betar put out a statement reading, “We urge all Jews on the Upper West Side to give Peter Beinart a [three pager emojis]. He is a traitor, a kapo, and we must oppose him.” Thus, Betar not only smeared him as a Nazi collaborator (Kapo) and called for his assassination but also appeared to reveal Beinart’s home location.

[Related: Abandoning the Role of Conqueror]

A similar incident involved political scientist Norman Finkelstein. In an effort to intimidate him into silence, a Betar member slipped a pager into his coat pocket, filming the incident. After Finkelstein refused to stop speaking out against injustice in the Middle East, last weekend, the group attempted to break up his public event in Washington, D.C.

Perhaps most outrageously, Betar has also publicly placed a bounty on the head of Palestinian-American activist Nerdeen Kiswani, telling her that, “You hate America, you hate Jews, and we are here and won’t be silent. $1,800 to anyone who hands that jihadi a beeper,” and later repeating the offer.

After worldwide pushback, the organization has deleted its posts calling for political killings of international officials and U.S. citizens.

In addition, Betar has regularly attempted to intimidate or shut down movements or gatherings protesting Israeli crimes. At a student event at UCLA, Betar publicly stated, “We demand police remove these thugs now and if not we will be forced to organize groups of Jews to do so.”

In January, it tried to break up a New York City vigil for Hind Rajab, a 5-year-old Palestinian girl brutally murdered by Israeli forces. Betar members filmed the event, telling attendees they were with Immigration, Customs and Enforcement (ICE) and using facial recognition technology to obtain their identities, which would subsequently be used to deport them.

In recent weeks, Betar members have also chanted hate speech outside a Bangladeshi mosque in New York City and attacked people who protested the illegal sale of Occupied West Bank land at an auction in Brooklyn.

That Betar is a hate group is barely in question. Even notoriously pro-Israel groups such as the Anti-Defamation League (an organization the F.B.I. once noted was almost certainly being bankrolled by the Israeli government) have included it in its list of extremist hate organizations.

The ADL notes that Betar uses the fascist Kahanist slogan, “For every Jew, a .22” (meaning Jews should be armed with .22 rifles) and has indicated it wishes to work with the Proud Boys, a far-right American gang.

Betar frequently revels in violence against civilian populations and calls for genocide against Palestinians.

“Fuck your ceasefire!!  Turn Gaza to rubble!!” they announced last month. “Betar firmly supports the plan to remove Palestinians from Gaza,” they added. In response to a post detailing the vast numbers of Palestinian babies killed since Oct.7, 2023, it replied, “Not enough. We demand blood in Gaza!”

A Fascist Paramilitary – But Jewish

Zeev Jabotinsky, bottom right, circa 1939, meeting with Betar leaders in Warsaw. Bottom left Menachem Begin. (Wikimedia Commons/Public domain)

Betar traces its origins back over 100 years. The group was founded by early Zionist leader Ze’ev Jabotinsky as a far-right paramilitary force, one that explicitly stood against the leftist Jewish groups who dominated at a time when “Jewish” and “socialist” were seen by many as virtually synonymous.

Jabotinsky believed that establishing a state in Palestine would require the creation of what he called a “new Jew,” one that would be willing to fight and die for Zionism. To this end, Betar was established as a fighting organization and received generous funding from conservative benefactors.

Jabotinsky instructed members to swear an oath to the unborn Israel: “I devote my life to the rebirth of the Jewish State, with a Jewish majority, on both sides of the Jordan.” The creation of such a state, therefore, would require the mass extermination or expulsion of the region’s native inhabitants.

Betar’s formal name was Brit Yosef Trumpeldor, named after a Jewish settler who was killed in 1920 in an early firefight with Palestinians over disputed land. It was exactly men like Trumpeldor who Jabotinsky believed were necessary in order to win, in contrast to the majority of European Jews, who he saw as passive and weak.

Europe in the 1920s was a time of rising anti-semitism, and despite their inherent anti-Jewish nature, many conservative Jews admired the discipline and organization of fascist paramilitaries such as Hitler’s Brownshirts. Betar was modeled on these groups, with Jabotinsky believing the Zionist project’s success was dependent on the establishment of such organizations. 

[See: ‘Brown Shirts in Zion’ by Robert Gessner from New Masses, 1935]

The Sturmabteilung, or SA unit, also known as Brown Shirts, in Nuremberg, Germany, in 1929. (Bundesarchiv/ Wikimedia Commons/ CC BY-SA 3.0 de)

Because of their anti-communist, anti-worker outlook, conservative money flooded into Betar, helping it become one of the largest and most influential Jewish organizations by the 1930s, with membership rising to around 70,000 people.

Betar leaders would go on to become key figures in Israeli politics. These included Prime Ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzchak Shamir, as well as Benzion Netanyahu, the father of current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

While this depiction of Betar as a fascist terrorist group might sound biased or one-sided, much of this information comes directly from the organization itself.

On its official website’s “Our History” section, Betar writes (emphasis added):

“Betar thus became an incubator for the development of right-wing Zionist ideas and its supporters were sometimes referred to as ‘Jewish Fascists.’ In Palestine, Betar members facilitated illegal Jewish immigration and were active instigators of disturbances and violence, frequently bombing Arab civilian areas in response to attacks and waging guerilla [sic] warfare against the British.”

Thus, the organization does not shy away from the fascism label, and it proudly notes that it “frequently” carried out terror operations against Arab civilians in Palestine. (At some point in the past week, after it began receiving increased scrutiny for its connections to the Trump administration, Betar has removed both the “fascist” moniker and the boast about bombing Arabs, but the original page can still be viewed via the Internet Archive.

Since Oct. 7, 2023, Betar has greatly upped its presence in the United States, thanks to far-right Israeli-American businessman Ronn Torossian and Executive Director Ross Glick.

In July 2024, it successfully applied for tax-exempt nonprofit status, meaning it is classified by the government as a charity.

“Since our revival in 2024, Betar has made a powerful impact across the U.S. and is just getting started. We are recruiting, developing, and empowering Jews to become unapologetic Zionist leaders — defending Israel on campuses, in communities, and across all platforms,” Betar writes. Yet an investigation by The Electronic Intifada suggests that Betar might have been illegally fundraising.

The same report notes that Glick has faced serious allegations of sex crimes. In 2019, his former girlfriend found nude images of herself posted on her company’s official Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter pages. Glick was arrested and charged with unlawful use of a computer and unlawfully posting the lewd pictures. He pleaded guilty to second-degree harassment, a violation, and paid a fine.

Commentators across the political spectrum agree that the Trump administration is pushing the United States in a rightward direction, in the process running roughshod over constitutional protections and guarantees. In doing so, they have found allies in many controversial groups. That such a small and new movement like Betar U.S. already enjoys such influence within the White House has already raised eyebrows. And given Israel’s determination to continue its genocidal campaigns against its neighbors —and Trump’s limitless support for its ally — it appears likely that Betar’s will grow under the current administration.

If this is the case, that is bad news for those who value the right to speak freely and to protest. It is therefore crucial that this group be understood and scrutinized rather than be allowed to operate in the shadows behind closed doors.

Alan MacLeod is senior staff writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent, as well as a number of academic articles. He has also contributed to FAIR.org, The Guardian, Salon, The Grayzone, Jacobin Magazine, and Common Dreams.

This article is from MPN.news, an award winning investigative newsroom.  Sign up for their newsletter.