Category Blogger C0nservative Tree House

Dec 18 2025

Providence-area Radio Host Asks Brown University About Their Intentional Disabling of CCTV Systems


Posted originally on CTH on December 18, 2025 | Sundance

During a press conference on Wednesday, a Providence-area radio host, Chas Calenda, directly confronted Brown University officials and law enforcement with information he has received about the school intentionally disabling surveillance systems due to DEI concerns.

The response from university officials and the Providence Mayor indicate Mr. Chas Calenda’s informed accusation and question is directly on target.  WATCH:

In addition to information we previously shared {GO DEEP} reflecting requests from various “civil rights” and “humanitarian” groups who demanded Brown University disable their surveillance system, additional information about the issue comes via the Rhode Island ACLU making the same demand in October of this year [SEE HERE].

Brown University was under pressure from far-left groups as an outcome of concern the CCTV and school security system would be used by federal authorities to (a) identify radical leftists expressing antisemitic sentiments, and (b) identify the immigration status of persons on campus.  It is not just isolated to Brown University.

Multiple municipal governments, private and municipal agencies have received the same demand in an ongoing effort to block Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations.  The mass shooting on Brown University is leading to a larger public awareness of an issue that has been spreading rapidly in the last several months.

The claim by Chas Calenda is that his local sources within law enforcement are confirming the university cowed to the concerns of the civil rights groups, including the removal of cameras.  This is why there is no recorded CCTV footage, and the university is talking gibberish in their efforts to avoid admitting what has taken place.

Brown University and Providence police have $8 billion liability reasons to be less than honest with the alarmed public. The political ramifications of the story are also complicating the issue for Brown University, as well as local and national figures.

Here is the full press conference.  The key question comes at the very end of the video 49:20.

Dec 18 2025

Do Not Look Away on This One


Posted originally on CTH on December 18, 2025 | Sundance

The ramifications are enormous here, not just to Brown University, Providence Rhode Island or local/state officials.  The ramifications here extend into every facet of the leftist operation to disrupt law and order in the United States.

Do not look away from the story of the targeted assassination on the campus of Brown University, or the coverup surrounding why information is not available.  Brown University was attempting to create the ultimate leftist locale where every leftist idea and outlook was affirmed, and all leftist policies were implemented. The implications here are extremely important.  Do not look away.  WATCH:

.

Dec 18 2025

FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino Confirms His Resignation – Will Be Leaving FBI in January


Posted originally on CTH on December 17, 2025 | Sundance 

FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino confirms via his X account, that he will be leaving the FBI in January.

[SOURCE]

This announcement does not come as a surprise to those follow the details of corrupt systems closely and who have watched the scale of the problems surface through the years.

The problems within the FBI as an institution are systemic.  Both Kash Patel and Dan Bongino faced a monumental challenge in trying to get their arms around the scale of the problem within the institution.  There is no apple, only worms.

Any type of institutional confrontation at this scale can only succeed if the problems are first admitted. Bongino faced a big challenge with Director Patel refusing to accept institutional corruption was the biggest issue.  You cannot correct problems of great consequence until you admit the core of the problem.  No admission was made. The problems remain.

Inasmuch as we all wanted Dan Bongino to succeed, we must also admit to ourselves he did not possess sufficient skills that neuter the attack vectors that would be exploited against him.  Training that skillset first starts with an inward conversation.

Easily identified attack vectors are mechanisms deployed by those who retain corrupt activity within the institution.

We knew from the outset the corrupt FBI actors would seek to remain in control by manipulating the leadership Trump dispatched to confront them.

Kash Patel’s primary attack vector comes as an outcome of his ego, desire for affluence and delusions of grandeur.

Dan Bongino’s attack vector was/is his emotional need to be liked and appreciated by his audience.  As a broadcast personality an internal codependency heading is good for business.  However, in an institutional leadership position that same a codependency mindset is the opposite of the skillset needed to confront a corrupt audience.

Emotional dependency, definitions of self-worth determined by an external audience, creates vulnerability.  Corrupt FBI actors know how to exploit a personality that needs to be liked (Bongino), and corrupt FBI actors know how to exploit a personality that assigns value to the indulgences of position (Patel).  This was the non-pretending baseline for easy to predict failure.

Former National Security Advisor Mike Waltz held a worldview that was counter to the perspective of President Trump. He did possess the skillset; he just held the wrong mindset.  For Dan Bongino it was the opposite. Bongino holds the same mindset as President Trump, he just didn’t have the skillset.

Misaligned outlook or misaligned skillsets, when combined with easily identifiable attack vectors, creates manipulative opportunities for those who intend to continue corrupt endeavors within big institutional systems.

We wish Dan Bongino all the best as he returns to private life.

We will continue praying for Mr Bongino’s physical and emotional health, and we sincerely thank him for his efforts.

Dec 18 2025

President Trump Delivers an Address to the Nation


Posted originally on CTH on December 17, 2025 | Sundance 

President Trump delivers remarks to the nation, outlining the challenges left by years of intentional erosion of American values and law and order by those who controlled the Biden administration.  WATCH:

.

Dec 18 2025

Russian President Vladimir Putin Responds to Zelenskyy and EU During Remarks to Defense Ministry


Posted originally on CTH on December 17, 2025 | Sundance 

During a speech to the Russian Defense Ministry, Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin responded to the generally-public-outline of the Zelenskyy-EU plan to end combat operations against Russia.

Remarkably, President Putin began his statement by thanking North Korean Chairman Kim Jong-un for sending supportive troops to assist the Russian army in the Donbas region.  Putin held a moment of silence for the fallen soldiers from the DPRK.

The entire speech transcript IS HERE.  Below I am pulling out the excerpt that specifically pertains to the current line of conflict in Ukraine and the position of Russia as it pertains to a cessation of hostilities.

VLADIMIR PUTIN – […] “Today, we can see that the geopolitical situation remains tense throughout the world, and even critical in some regions. NATO countries are actively building up and modernizing their offensive forces, and creating and deploying new types of weapons, including in outer space.

Meanwhile, people in Europe are being indoctrinated with fears of an inevitable confrontation with Russia, with claims that preparations must be made for a major war. Various figures who have held or continue to hold positions of responsibility appear to have simply forgotten what that responsibility entails.

They are whipping up hysteria, guided by momentary, personal or group political interests rather than the interests of their people. I have said many times that this is a lie and an irrational narrative about an imaginary Russian threat to European countries. But they are doing this deliberately.

The truth is that Russia has always, until the last possible moment tried, even in the most complicated circumstances, to find diplomatic solutions to differences and conflicts. Responsibility for the failure to use these chances lies squarely with those who believe that they can use the language of force with us.

We continue to call for developing mutually beneficial and equal cooperation with the United States and European countries, and for creating a joint security system in the Eurasian region. We welcome nascent progress in our dialogue with the new US administration, which cannot be said of the current leaders of the majority of European countries.

At the same time, we realize that our Armed Forces remain the key guarantor of Russia’s sovereignty and independence in any international situation. As I have stated, we must work consistently to strengthen them.

What I would like to emphasize here are the objectives to be set in the area of military development, taking into account the dynamics of the situation along the line of contact, among other factors.

First. The goals of the special military operation will undoubtedly be achieved. We would prefer to accomplish this and address the root causes of the conflict through diplomatic means. However, if the opposing side and its foreign patrons refuse to engage in substantive dialogue, Russia will achieve the liberation of its historical lands by military means. The task of creating and expanding a security buffer zone will also be carried out consistently.

Second. Work on modernizing the Armed Forces must continue at a rapid pace and to a high standard, primarily within the framework of the new State Armament Programme for 2027˗2036, which is currently under development.

As I have repeatedly emphasized, the experience gained during the special military operation, emerging trends in combat tactics, and rapidly developing military technologies must be fully taken into account.

Key areas of the state programme include air and missile defense systems, command and control systems, electronic warfare capabilities, and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) operating in all environments.

Of course, improving our strategic nuclear forces remains a priority. As before, they will play a decisive role in deterring aggression and maintaining the global balance of power.” (READ MORE)

Dec 18 2025

Brown University Received a Letter from 34 Human Rights Groups in August Requesting They Disable Their CCTV System


Posted originally on CTH on December 17, 2025 | Sundance

The question is: Did Brown University acquiesce under pressure from far-left human rights groups to disable their CCTV systems, in advance of the mass shooting on campus?

[SOURCE – AUGUST 19, 2025]

As originally reported in August 2025 {SOURCE}, a group of far-left human rights advocates sent a letter to 150 U.S. colleges and universities asking them to disable the CCTV systems to protect “free expression and academic freedom across the country,” because “the Trump administration has launched an aggressive campaign against US academic institutions.”

The motive for the request to disable CCTV systems as stated: “Right now these tools are facilitating the identification and punishment of student protesters, undermining activists’ right to anonymity––a right the Supreme Court has affirmed as vital to free expression and political participation.” {SOURCE}

The letter from ‘Fight For The Future‘ (August, 2025) came after an earlier campaign by the same group seeking to stop the use of facial recognition cameras on college campuses. {SOURCE}

The Brown University President and school officials have been giving ridiculous answers to questions about the 800 cameras on the campus and the fact that no current footage exists of the shooter walking around inside the campus or inside the buildings therein.

The question is really a simple one.  Did Brown University follow the requests of the hardline leftist groups who asked the school to disable the functioning of their surveillance network in order to protect the identity of the students on campus?

Obviously, this potential explanation would answer a lot of seemingly irreconcilable questions about the lack of surveillance footage available to local law enforcement, state police and FBI investigators.  The only current footage of the shooter is from privately owned doorbell cameras and CCTV systems from businesses near the campus.  No footage of the shooter on campus has been identified.

Against the factual evidence of Brown University receiving requests to disable their surveillance cameras, someone needs to ask the right question.

Everyone can see the potential ramifications here, along with the severity of the legal risk Brown University would be facing.  Perhaps that dynamic is what’s behind the twisted wording and explanations coming from university and local officials.

A targeted political assassination of a young, female conservative vice-chair of the Brown University Republican group takes place.  The ideological shooter benefits from the lack of school security and surveillance.  That lack of security was intentionally created by ideological school administrators and officials bowing to pressure from ideologically aligned leftist organizations.

If accurate, this is quite a scenario on many levels; including a considerable legal risk, intentional and willful negligence, and massive lawsuit exposure in the aftermath of two deaths and 9 injured students.  Brown University has an $8 billion endowment.

As everyone understands, a University like Brown creates a local economy unto itself. College towns like Providence, Rhode Island are college towns for a reason.  The college is a considerable foundation for the economic wealth of the community.  As an outcome, the local officials would be in full protection mode over their economic foundation.  In this case, there are billions at stake.

Perhaps this dynamic explains all the conflicts and seemingly bizarre statements by local and university officials.  WATCH:

.

Dec 17 2025

JD Vance Gives Strong Defense of Susie Wiles


Posted originally on CTH on December 16, 2025 | Sundance

Vice President JD Vance was questioned about White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles calling Vance a conspiracy theorist.

Vance embraces the conspiracy label, defines how accurate it is, then delivers a strong set of remarks in defense of Susie Wiles.  WATCH: 

The overall remarks themselves are not terribly toxic to the White House, but the question of why a chief of staff would sit down for eleven interviews over 11 months with Vanity Fair remains rather curious.

What exactly did Susie Wiles expect was going to happen with all those recorded interviews?

Dec 17 2025

Bannon 2.0 – Another Trump Chief of Staff Creates Another Hot Mess


Posted originally on CTH on December 16, 2025 | Sundance 

Last time it was Steve Bannon who held multiple interviews with Michael Wolff for his book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House.  This time it is White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles who sat down for a series of recorded ‘on the record’ interviews with Vanity Fair author Chris Whipple. [Article w/ Paywall]

The interviews with Susie Wiles have been taking place all year, with recordings of her statements made to ensure she could not retract the divisive content now deployed by Vanity Fair at a critical moment in the Trump administration.

The intent of the Vanity Fair outline is to paint the most negative light possible, and it appears Susie Wiles gave Chris Whipple all the ammunition to do so.

TIMING: This anti-Trump narrative, supported by the toxic statements by Wiles, is dropped at a key moment when European leadership is purposefully pushing a narrative against President Trump. This series of articles and documented interviews hits at a moment of merging interests against the administration.  The coordination is noted.

SUBSTANCE: The New York Times outlines some of the statements by Susie Wiles that are going to grab attention.

[…] “Over the course of 11 interviews, Ms. Wiles offered pungent assessments of the president and his team: Mr. Trump “has an alcoholic’s personality.” Vice President JD Vance has “been a conspiracy theorist for a decade” and his conversion from Trump critic to ally was based not on principle but was “sort of political” because he was running for Senate. Elon Musk is “an avowed ketamine” user and “an odd, odd duck,” whose actions were not always “rational” and left her “aghast.” Russell T. Vought, the budget director, is “a right-wing absolute zealot.” And Attorney General Pam Bondi “completely whiffed” in handling the Epstein files.”

[…] She said she urged Mr. Trump not to pardon the most violent rioters from Jan. 6, 2021, which he did anyway. She unsuccessfully tried to get him to delay his major tariffs because of a “huge disagreement” among his advisers. And she said the administration needed to “look harder” at deportations to prevent mistakes.

[…] She attributes her ability to work for Mr. Trump to growing up with an alcoholic father, the sportscaster Pat Summerall. “High-functioning alcoholics or alcoholics in general, their personalities are exaggerated when they drink,” she said. “And so I’m a little bit of an expert in big personalities.” While Mr. Trump does not drink, she said he has “an alcoholic’s personality” and operates with “a view that there’s nothing he can’t do. Nothing, zero, nothing.”

[…] Ms. Wiles confided in Mr. Whipple in March that she had told Mr. Trump that his presidency was not supposed to be a retribution tour. “We have a loose agreement that the score settling will end before the first 90 days are over,” she said then. When that did not happen by August, she told Mr. Whipple that “I don’t think he’s on a retribution tour” but said that he was aiming at people who did “bad things” in coming after him. “In some cases, it may look like retribution,” she said. “And there may be an element of that from time to time. Who would blame him? Not me.”

[…] In the interviews published by Vanity Fair, Ms. Wiles faulted Ms. Bondi, one of her closest friends in the administration, for her early handling of the Epstein files, an issue that has been a cause célèbre for Mr. Trump’s right-wing base.

“I think she completely whiffed on appreciating that that was the very targeted group that cared about this,” Ms. Wiles said. “First, she gave them binders full of nothingness. And then she said that the witness list, or the client list, was on her desk. There is no client list, and it sure as hell wasn’t on her desk.” Mr. Vance, by contrast, understood the sensitivity because he himself was “a conspiracy theorist,” she said.

Ms. Wiles said she has read the Epstein documents and acknowledged that Mr. Trump’s name is in them. “We know he’s in the file,” she said. “And he’s not in the file doing anything awful.”

[…] Ms. Wiles described frustration with Mr. Musk, the billionaire who early in the year was empowered to eviscerate federal agencies and fire employees en masse with almost no process. “He’s an odd, odd duck, as I think geniuses are. You know, it’s not helpful, but he is his own person.” When he shared a post saying that Stalin, Mao and Hitler didn’t murder millions, their public sector workers did, Ms. Wiles said, “I think that’s when he’s microdosing.” Asked what she meant, she said, “he’s an avowed ketamine” user.

[…] In the interview with The Times on Monday, Ms. Wiles took issue with the quote attributed to her about his drug use. “That’s ridiculous,” she said. “I wouldn’t have said it and I wouldn’t know.” But Mr. Whipple played a tape for The Times in which she could be heard saying it.

[…] She acknowledged sharp internal divisions over Mr. Trump’s announcement of major tariffs last spring. “There was a huge disagreement over whether” tariffs were “a good idea,” she said. “We told Donald Trump, ‘Hey, let’s not talk about tariffs today. Let’s wait until we have the team in complete unity and then we’ll do it.’” But he announced them anyway and “it’s been more painful than I expected.”

[…] As for the potential successors, Mr. Vance and Mr. Rubio, she distinguished how each of them came around to supporting Mr. Trump after initially opposing him. “Marco was not the sort of person that would violate his principles,” she said. “He just won’t. And so he had to get there.” As for Mr. Vance, “his conversion came when he was running for the Senate. And I think his conversion was a little bit more, sort of political.”

Mr. Rubio told Mr. Whipple what he has said publicly, that “if JD Vance runs for president, he’s going to be our nominee and I’ll be one of the first people to support him.” (read more)

Immediately after publication of the Vanity Fair story, Mrs. Wiles took to Twitter to explain her position:

[SOURCE]

Mrs. Wiles never explains why, for all that is reasonable and holy, she would even sit down with Vanity Fair for eleven interviews over the course of the year.

If you find yourself looking at this narrative engineering and saying, “WTF, why would she be so stupid?”  You are not alone.

Perhaps it’s the old axiom that sooner or later the senior staff always convince themselves that they are the star of the show.  Or perhaps Mrs. Wiles just never heard the Snake Poem:

On her way to work one morning
Down the path ‘longside the lake
A tender-hearted woman saw a poor half-frozen snake
His pretty colored skin had been all frosted with the dew
“Oh well,” she cried, “I’ll take you in and I’ll take care of you”
“Take me in, tender woman
Take me in, for heaven’s sake
Take me in, tender woman,” sighed the snake

She wrapped him up all cozy in a comforter of silk
And laid him by thе fireside with some honеy and some milk
She hurried home from work that night, and soon as she arrived
She found that pretty snake she’d taken in had been revived
“Take me in, tender woman
Take me in, for heaven’s sake
Take me in, tender woman,” sighed the snake

She clutched him to her bosom, “You’re so beautiful,” she cried
“But if I hadn’t brought you in, by now you might have died”
She stroked his pretty skin again and kissed and held him tight
Instead of saying thanks, that snake gave her a vicious bite
“Take me in, tender woman
Take me in, for heaven’s sake
Take me in, tender woman,” sighed the snake

“I saved you,” cried the woman
“And you’ve bitten me, but why?
And you know your bite is poisonous and now I’m gonna die”
“Oh shut up, silly woman,” said the reptile with a grin
“You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in”

~ Oscar Brown Jr

Dec 17 2025

Brown University Shooter Still at Large – Open Discussion Thread


Posted originally on CTH on December 16, 2025 | Sundance

Everything about the Brown University shooting doesn’t make sense through the ordinary prism.

However, if political ramifications in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s targeted assassination are overlaid against the Brown University murders, then a certain context might reconcile some of the issues. {GO DEEP}  Was Ella Cook targeted in a similarly motivated fashion to the murder of Charlie Kirk?

There are a reported 800 cameras on the Brown University campus, including facial recognition capable cameras, yet school and local police officials claim they do not have any footage of the suspect entering or exiting the building or walking on the campus itself.

Given the nature of the extreme left Brown U ideology, were the cameras turned off or non-recording as part of an ICE resistance effort?

Journalist Mark Halprin received information that College Republican Vice President Ella Cook was the primary target of the shooter.  This is relayed as information to Ms. Cook’s family as stated by FBI investigators. Other victims who were with her in the room were shot as an outcome of their association with the primary target.  WATCH:

There are a lot of odd contradictions and missing information within the statements by the Providence Mayor, school officials and local law enforcement. The suspect has still not been identified, and the local police are trying to avoid specific questions.

Obviously, if Ella Cook, a conservative Christian student and vice-president of the campus Republican group was the specific target, then Brown University would have a motive to try and avoid admitting that Ella Cook a young, female, Christian conservative student was a victim of a targeted political assassination on campus.

Fox News host Jesse Waters has actually put together a strong monologue drawing attention to some of the issues; however, Waters only alludes to the issues raised within the background, he does not draw attention to the specifics. WATCH:

Dec 17 2025

Zelenskyy and EU Leaders Release Official Position and Joint Statement Following Berlin Negotiations – USA Did Not Sign


Posted originally on CTH on December 16, 2025 | Sundance

Before getting to the details as released for media consumption, three facets deserve emphasis.

(1) The primary objective of Ukraine/EU has been a publicity campaign to retain influence and support. (2) U.S. Emissaries Witkoff and Kushner are silent on the announced negotiated result. (3) Ukraine’s lead negotiator Rustem Umerov notes, “There is a lot of noise and anonymous speculation in the media right now. Please don’t fall for rumors and provocations. The American team led by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are working extremely constructively to help Ukraine find a way to a peace agreement that lasts.”

I would overlay that within the weeks of discussions it is easy to spot distance between Umerov and Zelenskyy, specifically as it pertains to the influence of the EU Leadership group.  Meaning, Zelenskyy is a puppet for the EU team, whereas Umerov appears more pragmatic and seemingly more focused on the interests of Ukraine.

Additionally, despite the violence and death in the war, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy continues to say he is in no hurry to end the bloodshed.  This becomes more important to recognize when you look at the post-Berlin comments from Zelenskyy himself.

First, to the outcome of the negotiations as expressed by the EU Leadership team.

This is their official joint statement on their position within the framework.  Again, not signed or accepted by the U.S delegation. [SOURCE]

The Leaders welcomed significant progress on President Trump’s efforts to secure a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. They also welcomed the close work between President Zelenskyy’s and President Trump’s teams as well as European teams over the recent days and weeks. They agreed to work together with President Trump and President Zelenskyy to get to a lasting peace which preserves Ukrainian sovereignty and European security. Leaders appreciated the strong convergence between the United States, Ukraine and Europe.

Leaders agreed that ensuring the security, sovereignty, and prosperity of Ukraine was integral for wider Euro-Atlantic security. They were clear that Ukraine and its people deserved a prosperous, independent, and sovereign future, free from fear of future Russian aggression.

Both the US and European leaders committed to work together to provide robust security guarantees and economic recovery support measures for Ukraine in the context of an agreement on ending the war. This would include commitments to:

♦ Provide sustained and significant support to Ukraine to build its armed forces, which should remain at a peacetime level of 800,000 to be able to deter conflict and defend Ukraine’s territory.

♦ A European-led ‘multinational force Ukraine’ made up from contributions from willing nations within the framework of the Coalition of the Willing and supported by the US. It will assist in the regeneration of Ukraine’s forces, in securing Ukraine’s skies, and in supporting safer seas, including through operating inside Ukraine.

♦ A US led ceasefire monitoring and verification mechanism with international participation to provide early warning of any future attack and attribute and respond to any breaches along with a deconfliction mechanism to work on mutual deescalatory actions that can be taken to benefit all parties.

♦ A legally binding commitment, subject to national procedures, to take measures to restore peace and security in the case of a future armed attack. These measures may include armed force, intelligence and logistical assistance, economic and diplomatic actions.

♦ Invest in the future prosperity of Ukraine, including making major resources available for recovery and reconstruction, mutually beneficial trade agreements, and taking into account the need for Russia to compensate Ukraine for the damage caused. In this vein, Russian sovereign assets in the European Union have been immobilised.

♦ Strongly support Ukraine’s accession to the European Union.

The leaders expressed their support for President Zelenskyy and agreed to support whatever decisions he ultimately makes on specific Ukrainian issues. They reaffirmed that international borders must not be changed by force. Decisions on territory are for the people of Ukraine, once robust security guarantees are effectively in place. They agreed that some issues would need to be resolved in the final stages of negotiations. They underlined that they would support President Zelenskyy to consult his people if needed.

They were clear that as in any deal, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and that all parties must work intensively towards a solution that could assure a lasting end to the fighting.

They were also clear that any deal should protect the long-term security and unity of the Euro-Atlantic and the role of NATO in providing robust deterrence. They stated that any elements affecting the EU and NATO will be discussed among EU and NATO members respectively.

It is now incumbent upon Russia to show willingness to work towards a lasting peace by agreeing to President Trump’s peace plan and to demonstrate their commitment to end the fighting by agreeing to a ceasefire. Leaders agreed to continue to increase pressure on Russia to bring Moscow to negotiate in earnest.

They all committed to work on rapid further progress in the coming days and weeks to jointly conclude and endorse an agreement for a lasting peace. They reaffirmed their strong support for President Zelenskyy and the people of Ukraine in their fight against Russia’s illegal invasion and in delivering a just and lasting peace.

This statement remains open for other countries to join. [SOURCE LINK]

As noted in the position of the “EU Leadership,” under their plan the Russian sovereign wealth fund will be permanently confiscated by the EU and distributed according to their stakeholder interests.   Ukraine President Zelenskyy later stated he expects to receive $40 to $45 billion euros per year from these confiscated assets.

There are two scenarios: 1 – if the war ends, the funds will go toward rebuilding the country; 2 – if aggression continues, Ukraine expects €40–45 billion annually for defense and security.

Here, in his words to the media after the Berlin conference, is where you need to read between the lines for Zelenskyy’s mindset.  Notice he is already positioning a continuance of the conflict, “if aggression continues….”

To the issue of permanent confiscation of a captured sovereign wealth fund.  Think about the ramifications here, not just to Russia but to the international monetary system.  The Russian sovereign wealth fund is not the money of Vladimir Putin; it is the investment fund belonging to the people of Russia.

This precedent, if carried out, means all nations with sovereign wealth funds (Japan, Asia countries, Saudi Arabia, et al) will now look upon those funds as “at risk” investments forever.  If the U.S/EU assembly can simply confiscate the EU/USD-based wealth of a sovereign nation, then all nations are at risk of a similar outcome based on the ideological alignment of the control group.  Western asset holdings will forever be viewed through this political prism.

Next, Zelenskyy expects to receive all the Russian funds, or €40 to 45 billion annually from the Russian account holders in the EU if the fight continues.

Presumably this Russian money would be used to continue the Ukraine graft and conflict if the USA refuses to send more money.  This is a core element behind what Zelenskyy then said to reporters.

Here are Zelenskyy’s words as quoted and summarized (I have verified by reviewing 3 sources from the media team). The emphasis is mine:

– The U.S. wants a quick end to the war; for us, quality matters. If speed and quality coincide, we’re fully on board, Zelenskyy said.

– Neither de jure nor de facto will we recognize Donbas as Russian.

– Zelensky confirmed talks with Trump and European leaders. According to him, the unity of Ukraine, the U.S., and Europe was demonstrated.

– Today or tomorrow we will finalize the documents. Then, in the coming days, the U.S. will hold consultations with the Russians, followed by consultations with the U.S. President. After that, our teams will meet in the U.S. soon—possibly even over the weekend.

– “I believe we are very close to strong security guarantees. Where there is a Fifth Amendment, as in NATO—meaning a mirror of Article 5 for all Alliance members.

– Ukraine supports the idea of a Christmas truce.

– A reparations loan or other use of frozen Russian assets is a financial guarantee of Ukraine’s security. There are two scenarios: 1 – if the war ends, the funds will go toward rebuilding the country; 2 – if aggression continues, Ukraine expects €40–45 billion annually for defense and security.

– In the first version of the peace plan there were certain points I don’t want to comment on, but importantly, they are no longer there.

– The U.S. is seeking compromise approaches and proposes a free economic zone format, but this does not mean Russian control. At the same time, the President acknowledged that the issue of territories remains one of the key questions, and there is still no consensus.

– “I am ready for elections. If we reach certain sensitive issues and decide elections are needed—if there is a ceasefire, there will be elections.” {SOURCE}

The second point by Zelenskyy is factually stunning. “Neither de jure nor de facto will we recognize Donbas as Russian.” Not within law, nor within a matter of fact, will Zelenskyy recognize the Donbas region as Russian territory.

If accurate and not just PR, Ukraine will not concede the Donbas region to Russia.  This is the context behind all other points on regional geography or territories.  Zelenskyy will not give Putin the Eastern Ukraine region which Russia currently occupies.

In a very real and pragmatic way this position can make all of the negotiated ceasefire talks, entirely moot.  This is also why this appears to be the emphasis: “U.S. officials said that territorial questions — including Donbas — will ultimately be resolved directly between Ukraine and Russia, at the highest political level, essentially leaving the territorial question for the final stage of discussions. {Source}

I’m not sure how the Ukraine-U.S-EU-Russia negotiations can frame all other aspects while simultaneously leaving out the part of territorial concessions until later.

As noted by the official statement from EU Leadership, “as in any deal, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”  Perhaps this is how they are structuring momentum; keep focused on the small things for agreement, until you hit the wall of major disagreement at the end.  This would not be beginning with the end in mind.

I’m not sure who the U.S. officials are in these points being relayed by (pro-Ukraine) media, so take this stuff with a grain of salt, because, well… World War Reddit:

“STRATEGY ON RUSSIA: U.S. officials say President Trump is focused on reaching a conclusion to this conflict that truly stops Russia from moving west: “Under President Bush – Russia moved West, under President Obama – Russia moved West, under President Biden – Russia moved West. President Trump really wants to see this seeded as an agreement that ends that for good. That’s really what we’re trying to find a way to bring there.” {Source}

American officials say that President Trump’s focus is on robust security guarantees for Ukraine and Europe, while also rebuilding economic and political relations with Russia: “President Trump’s focus on this deal has been, number one, we need to make sure that there’s very, very robust security so that the war really ends and this will not happen again. Number two, how we make sure we deal with all the economic issues for Ukraine, so they have a bright and prosperous future. But also that Russia gets back into the global economy, so that they have incentive not to go back to war in the future, and hopefully they get focused on a different project, which is really the economy and being part of the global world, which is possible.” {SOURCE}

U.S. officials say the parties plan to meet again this weekend, likely somewhere in the United States—possibly Miami—where working groups, including military representatives, will review maps and outstanding issues. They believe roughly 90 percent of the issues between Ukraine and Russia have already been resolved, with a few remaining points still to be worked out. As additional information is gathered, the sides will compare remaining positions, including European views on territorial issues.

U.S. officials say there has been clear and acknowledged progress in narrowing the gaps between Ukraine and Russia. “We’ve identified multiple possible solutions to help bridge those gaps, which we’re proposing to the parties. We broke into a working group today focused specifically on this issue, and within about an hour we produced a three-page draft outlining the key points. As we worked through it, we realized that on roughly 90 percent of the issues there was consensus and unanimity of opinion. That reflects a real good-faith effort”, – Americans said {SOURCE}

Zelenskyy’s public statements seem to change based on his audience.

As you can see below, Zelenskky’s wording is fraught with passive-aggressive context and manipulative structure.   “If these meetings had taken place earlier”…. blah blah blah.  The U.S. team has literally been immersed in discussions with the Ukraine delegation for months.

If there was anything missing in the U.S-Ukraine discussions before, it was/is not an issue of availability from the U.S. side.  The only thing that recently changed substantively is Zelenskyy hiding behind the skirt of Merz, Starmer, Macron and Von der Leyen (EU Leaders) to frame his talking points, AND this newly expressed zero-sum position that none of the Donbas will be conceded.

Just as a reminder: Zelensky and David Arakhamia, Ukraine’s initial negotiator, refused to sign the Istanbul ceasefire and peace agreement because, as they said, “we would have to give up NATO, and that requires changing the Constitution, which is impossible.” This was after Zelenskyy received direct pressure from British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to stop negotiating with Russia.

Now, as it turns out, what they said was “impossible” is entirely possible – just as it has always been possible to hold elections during a war.  Zelensky’s decisions in 2022/2023 had nothing to do with a genuine position of the state, or best interests for Ukraine.  Zelenskyy’s position was driven by a desire for control, power and profit at the cost of the lives and fate of millions of Ukrainians.

Now, Zelenskyy wants a structural security guarantee that creates a de facto NATO alignment.  Essentially, all of the NATO security benefits, NATO recognition, NATO protection, NATO tools, and yet not officially a NATO member.

In addition, Zelenskyy demands full expedited entry into the European Union.

So, to summarize the position of Zelenskyy that is supported by the EU Leaders.  (1) No concession on Donbas. (2) De facto NATO protection and membership. (3) EU membership and (4) Ukraine control of the Russian sovereign wealth fund.

To the folks in the administration who read here:  Please accept that ¹Zelenskyy (et al) is manipulating you into a very narrow gauntlet in order to use the USA clout to achieve an objective that is not part of the administration goal.

Begin with the end in mind and now modify the approach.  Tackle the issue of territorial concessions and watch all of these endless discussions collapse upon their own weight because they are missing the foundational block.  Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin is not going to retreat from Eastern Ukraine; any more than President Trump would give Texas to Mexico.

[¹There’s also a better than average likelihood, Zelenskyy is in alignment with a genuine EU/Nazi mindset. Which, of course, was the reason Obama/DoS selected him in the first place.]