Posted originally on CTH on December 29, 2025 | Sundance
In addition to being the main economic engine in Europe, Germany is the epicenter of the European Union’s overall goal to chase the green energy agenda.
For the past several years Germany has been deconstructing their fossil fuel energy production and replacing it with far more expensive alternatives. This has led to large increases in overall energy prices, and downstream increases in manufacturing costs.
The consequences have been snowballing throughout 2025, while cheap competitive alternatives coming into the EU from China have compounded their problem. Recently a survey of major industries was conducted in Germany to determine the forecast for 2026, the results are not good.
Approximately half of the industrial sectors in Germany are anticipating job losses, cuts or layoffs this year.
22 out of 46 business associations are preparing to downsize their labor force. Only 9 of the 46 are expected to increase hiring.
At a top-line this looks bad. However, when you look at the sectors contracting versus the sectors stable or expanding, you suddenly realize there is a bigger geopolitical problem within the forecast.
Job losses are expected in auto manufacturing, the textile sector, wood and paper fabrication. Job gains are expected in aerospace, shipbuilding and defense production – i.e. the war machinery.
When the largest and most developed industrial economy in Europe is pinning its economic survival on war machinery, a particular momentum is created. It is never a good outcome for Europe when Germany becomes reliant on war to maintain employment.
Unfortunately, that economic forecast does provide context to the German position for continued Ukraine/Russia conflict. You might say that without a war, Germany could slip into a severe economic contraction; not good.
BERLIN, Dec 29 (Reuters) – A majority of German business associations expect job cuts in 2026 as the country’s economic crisis persists, with industry hit hardest by global protectionism and weak exports, a survey by the German Economic Institute IW showed on Monday.
Of 46 business associations surveyed, 22 anticipate workforce reductions next year. Only nine expect to increase hiring and 15 foresee stable employment levels.
[…] Some bright spots emerged in sectors benefiting from increased defense spending, including aerospace and shipbuilding. (read more)
We will keep watching with additional background context for the Ukraine/Russia negotiations.
Posted originally on CTH on December 28, 2025 | Sundance
President Donald Trump is ducking and weaving through the minefield of geopolitical politics, managing a proxy war he did not create that was organized by a corrupt U.S. State Dept./CIA and globalist agenda.
Trump wants the war to end; he wants the U.S. out of it; he wants peace with a fundamental reset of the entire European dynamic, and he wants a strategic relationship with the Russian Federation. However, every element in the proverbial ‘West’ wants exactly the opposite.
Washington DC – the majorities in both parties, most of the European Union and the ‘Western’ military industrial complex stand in opposition to President Trump’s objective. The value of the dollar rests on his ability to navigate this complex geopolitical dynamic. The ‘stakeholders’ are against him. Trump has few allies. This is the challenge.
Do not diminish the scale of the challenge without consideration for the scale of opposition. Russian President Vladimir Putin knows exactly what President Trump is up against; we would be wise to watch with similar patience.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been convinced by European leaders, NATO and the Intelligence Community that he has the upper hand. President Trump has only his wits, a strategic perspective and us.
Posted originally on CTH on December 27, 2025 | Sundance
EU leaders from across the spectrum of their collective assembly, are furious with the administration of President Donald Trump for restricting their entry into the United States by blocking their visa permissions. However, these same EU leaders are the people who sent operatives into the United States in order to interfere in our 2024 election.
The Vice President of the European Commission, Kaja Kallas, sums up the European position: “The decision by the U.S. to impose travel restrictions on European citizens and officials is unacceptable and an attempt to challenge our sovereignty. Europe will keep defending its values — freedom of expression, fair digital rules, and the right to regulate our own space.”
The “attempt to challenge our sovereignty” statement is a particular type of hubris when we consider THIS:
GREAT BRITAIN(October 2024) – The British Labour Party is sending approximately 100 current and former staff members to the United States to work for Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign in key swing states.
Not only did the U.K attempt to challenge our sovereignty, but they also actively worked to influence the outcome of our national election in 2024.
The same pearl-clutching assembly, now standing jaw-agape at the Trump administration recognizing their censorship, are the same assembly who engaged in political operations intended to influence the voting voice of the American electorate.
Methinks they doth protest too much.
It is worth remembering the British intelligence operation, (Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), commonly known as MI6), was at the center of the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy in 2016.
The first EU political group to be targeted with the visa bans includes French former EU commissioner Thierry Breton, who was one of the architects of the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). Also: Imran Ahmed, the British CEO of the U.S.-based Center for Countering Digital Hate, Anna-Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon of the German non-profit HateAid, and Clare Melford, co-founder of the Global Disinformation Index.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the first five people targeted with visa bans “have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize and suppress American viewpoints they oppose.”
I would say that given the direct nature of the U.K effort to undermine American viewpoints, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is being diplomatically generous in his visa ban.
For those who are unaware: want a sign that the Trump Administration is doing the right thing by sanctioning a major proponent of the censorship industrial complex, Imran Ahmed?
Just take a look at a few of the lawyers representing him in a lawsuit against the Trump…
Posted originally on CTH on December 27, 2025 | Sundance
Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is promoting support for his 20-point peace plan via phone calls with various EU stakeholders including, President of Finland Alex Stubb, Prime Minister of Canada Mark Carney, NATO General Secretary Mark Rutte, the Prime Minister of Estonia Kristen Michal, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and the Prime Minister of Denmark Mette Frederiksen.
The overall position of Zelenskyy is a continuum of public relations and constructs intended to maintain the illusion of support in order to retain receiving funding from western interests. Ukraine is the proxy war between the ‘west’ and the Russian Federation.
Zelenskyy is scheduled to meet with President Trump on Sunday. However, in an interview with Politico U.S. President Donald Trump tamps down expectations.
(Via Politico) – […] Trump appeared lukewarm to Zelenskyy’s latest overture and in no rush to endorse the Ukrainian president’s proposal. “He doesn’t have anything until I approve it,” Trump said. “So we’ll see what he’s got.”
[…] Still, Trump believed he could have a productive meeting this weekend. “I think it’s going to go good with him. I think it’s going to go good with [Vladimir] Putin,” Trump said, adding that he expects to speak with the Russian leader “soon, as much as I want.”
Trump’s comments came the day after Zelenskyy spoke with special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law. Zelenskyy called that a “good conversation.”
[…] Trump also confirmed that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would visit him this weekend. “I have Zelenskyy and I have Bibi coming. They’re all coming. They all come,” Trump said. “They respect our country again.”
Netanyahu, according to a report from NBC, will brief Trump on the growing threat from Iran.
Zelenskyy’s meeting, in addition to security guarantees, will focus on management of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, and territorial control of Donbas, the eastern territories claimed by Moscow.
Zelenskyy’s plan, which Ukrainian officials have described as an attempt to show flexibility without conceding territory, has received little public reaction from Washington.
Zelenskyy’s offer of a demilitarized zone came with a key condition: Russia would have to withdraw its forces from a corresponding stretch of land in Donetsk. (read more)
President Trump is correct in saying Zelenskyy has nothing until President Trump agrees to support the proposal.
Despite the promotional toursof the Ukraine president, ultimately Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin is in control of the majority of the Eastern Donbas region and has not indicated any willingness to give up that territory.
The European Leadership and ‘coalition of the willing’ have essentially constructed the terms and conditions of the Zelenskyy proposal. However, that same group have positioned their interests with exceptional antagonism toward Russia.
According to those who control the political power centers, Russia is the existential threat to Europe, and all of their proposals are with a baseline of continued conflict at the center of their strategic plan.
Zelenskyy is proposing that Russia pulls back from the Donbas and Ukraine will agree to a demilitarized economic control zone in the region. However, that is essentially no different from what existed prior to Russia’s entry into Ukraine, and there is no reason to think the “economic control zone,” filled with a regional population who support Russia, would be anything less than another name for a place where NATO will be playing games to provoke further conflict.
Without U.S. support the NATO proxy war against Russia will be much more difficult to maintain. Team EU/Zelenskyy are positioning their tactics with an expectation that President Trump will be greatly diminished in the 2026 midterm election.
Posted originally on CTH on December 25, 2025 | Sundance
Following a series of FOIA lawsuits, memos from conversations between Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin and former US President George W. Bush have been released online by the National Security Archive. [Original Source Here]
I know it’s Christmas, but bookmark or review as time allows, because the content is very interesting and very important. As early as 2001 and 2008, President Putin clearly told President Bush of his opposition to Ukraine’s accession to NATO, along with other key positions.
Despite what popular media might say, these are NOT full transcripts. Rather, they are memos containing quotes from both leaders as they discuss geopolitical relations between the U.S. and Russia. [SOURCE HERE]
♦ June 16, 2001 – Memorandum of Conversation. Subject: Restricted Meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. [LINK HERE] In this first personal meeting at the Brno Castle in Slovenia Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush express respect for each other and desire to establish a close relationship. Putin tells Bush about his religious beliefs and the story of his cross that survived a fire at his dacha. In a short one-on-one meeting they cover all the most important issues of U.S.-Russian relations such as strategic stability, ABM treaty, nonproliferation, Iran, North Korea and NATO expansion. Bush tells his Russian counterpart that he believes Russia is part of the West and not an enemy, but raises a question about Putin’s treatment of a free press and military actions in Chechnya. Putin raises a question of Russian NATO membership and says Russia feels “left out.” [READ MEMO HERE]
♦ September 16, 2005: Document 2 – Memorandum of Conversation. Subject: Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation: [LINK HERE] Putin meets the U.S. President in the Oval Office for a plenary that covers mainly issues of nonproliferation and U.S.-Russian cooperation on Iran and North Korea. The conversation shows impressively close positions on Iran and North Korea, with Putin presenting himself as an eager and supportive partner. Bush tells Putin “we don’t need a lot of religious nuts with nuclear weapons” referring to Iran. Putin said that Ukraine’s accession to NATO would, in the long term, create a field of conflict between Russia and the United States, adding that internal divisions within Ukraine could lead to its fragmentation. [READ MEMO HERE]
♦ April 6, 2008 – Document 3: Memorandum of Conversation. Subject: Meeting with President of Russia [LINK HERE] This is the last meeting between Putin and Bush, taking place at Putin’s residence in Bocharov Ruchei in Sochi on the Black Sea. The tone is strikingly different from the early conversations, where both presidents pledged cooperation on all issues and expressed commitment to strong personal relationship. This meeting takes place right after the NATO summit in Bucharest where tensions flared about the U.S. campaign for an invitation to Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO. Turning to conversations in Bucharest, Putin states his strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia and says that Russia would be relying on anti-NATO forces in Ukraine and “creating problems” in Ukraine “all the time,” because it is concerned about “threat of military bases and new military systems being deployed in the proximity of Russia.” Surprisingly, in response, Bush expresses his admiration for the Russian president’s ability to present his case: “One of the things I admire about you is you weren’t afraid to say it to NATO. That’s very admirable. People listened carefully and had no doubt about your position. It was a good performance.” [READ MEMO HERE]
2001 – Putin raises a question of Russian NATO membership and says Russia feels “left out.”
As noted by The Islander (Via Twitter)– “The 2001 Memo That Should Have Ended the Cold War 2.0 and Instead Helped Write the Preface to Ukraine. There are documents that don’t merely record history, they expose it. This is one of them.
June 2001. A “restricted meeting” between President George W. Bush and President Vladimir Putin. Not a podium performance, not a television soundbite, not a speech crafted for domestic applause. A private conversation, the place where empires are supposed to speak plainly, where leaders test ideas that could reroute decades.
And what does the memo show?
Putin raises the idea that Russia could eventually join NATO. He says Russia feels “left out” by NATO enlargement. He points to an older fact most Western publics were never meant to internalize: the Soviet Union applied to join NATO in 1954. He argues the reasons for rejection no longer apply. He suggests, almost clinically, that perhaps Russia could be an ally — “European and multi-ethnic,” comparable in character to the United States.
Read that again slowly.
Because the propaganda version you’ve been fed for years requires amnesia: it requires you to believe Russia woke up one morning and decided to be “a threat,” as if geopolitics is a mood swing and security architecture is irrelevant.
But here is the declassified record: Russia was probing for an exit ramp. A pathway into a shared system. A new security architecture. A post–Cold War settlement that could have turned the 1990s from a hollow victory lap into a durable peace.
And it didn’t happen.
Not because it was impossible. Not because Russia “never wanted it.” Not because “the West tried everything.”
It didn’t happen because NATO, as an institution, does not know how to live without a frontier. It does not know how to justify itself without an adversary. It does not know how to maintain internal cohesion without a map that points east and says: there.
The 1954 Ghost: the offer the West never wanted to remember
The most important part of this memo is not the 2001 line, but the 1954 reference.
Because it collapses the morality play.
If the Soviet Union, a state the West defined as the existential enemy, floated the notion of joining NATO in 1954, that means something profound: the idea of Russia being inside the European security architecture is not a “Putin-era trick.” It is a recurring historical proposal, returning whenever Moscow believes there may be a rational way to avoid permanent confrontation.
And what happened then? It was refused.
Which is exactly the point: NATO was never simply a “defensive alliance.” Even in 1954, It was a structure. A protection racket. A way to organize Europe under an American strategic roof and to keep it there. If Russia enters that roof as an equal, the architecture changes. Budgets decrease, with less money for the MIC. Threat perceptions change. The entire postwar hierarchy changes.
So the West did what empires do when presented with a peace that would reduce their leverage:
It smiled, took notes, and kept moving.
“Join NATO” was never a plea, it was a test.
Some people still misunderstand the early Putin posture. They interpret it as naivete, or worse, submission.
Wrong.
This was not Russia begging to be absorbed. The consistent theme in contemporaneous accounts is conditionality, that Russia could consider joining if treated as an equal partner, but not as a defeated province invited into the emperor’s club after proving it can submit.
That distinction matters.
Because it reveals the real incompatibility: •Russia wanted a security system where it is a partner of European security, not an object to be managed. •The Atlantic system wanted Russia as a managed periphery, permanently “integrating,” permanently reforming, permanently conceding, never truly sovereign in security decisions.
You can’t fuse those visions. One side must yield.
So the Atlantic system chose the only thing it has ever really chosen, expansion.”
A quarter century has passed since that original outreach by Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin in 2001. It was rejected by President George W Bush and all presidents thereafter. In 2025, we are in the phase of consequence.
This public release just happened on December 23, 2025.
Perhaps, just perhaps, this release can change the conversation in the United States. Perhaps, just perhaps, President Trump, Secretary Rubio and Emissary Witkoff can reverse the course, and change the arc of history toward peace and a strategic alliance.
The timing of the release inspires hope, but the opposition to peace is extreme.
Posted originally on CTH on December 25, 2025 | Sundance
Lyndon LaRouche (1922-2019) was a rather eclectic communist in the world of American politics for several generations. A few of his perspectives were sound and nationalistic. However, many of his perspectives were completely communist and slipped into the realm of geopolitical conspiracy theory finding British Imperialism under every rock and blaming Queen Elizabeth II for assassination attempts against him.
Susan Kokinda and Barbara Boyd of Promethean Action continue the LaRouche tradition while smoothing out some of the more outlandish elements and removing the overt communism the originating political movement was known for.
Barbara Boyd is the spokesperson and treasurer of the LaRouche Youth Movement. Boyd’s partner, Susan Kokinda, maintains a belief that eliminating British Imperialism is the objective of President Trump’s America-First policy agenda. This is where I disagree.
While the outcome of President Trump’s policy does factually lead to the result LaRouche advocated, I strongly doubt “eliminating British imperialism” is the prism through which Donald Trump’s thought process flows. That said, in the overall picture of American politics, the Kokinda and Boyd analysis of Trump’s international opposition is generally accurate, but their perspective on the domestic opposition is entirely shallow.
In their recent update, “Britains Secret Plot”, Susan Kokinda discusses how Marco Rubio is confronting the EU censorship program, and how President Trump’s national security strategy marks a significant departure from over a century of British-influenced American foreign policy. Her review delves into the geopolitical friction between the U.S. and the UK, particularly regarding their strategies toward Russia and Ukraine.
Mrs. Kokinda underscores the broader clash of worldviews between America-First sovereignty and British-led internationalism. This episode also examines the opposition Trump faces from within the U.S. political establishment and British geopolitical strategists and emphasizes the importance of maintaining political support to ensure the success of Trump’s transformative policies. WATCH:
The divergence between the worldview of the European Union and President Trump is accurately presented as above. The Ukraine/Russia war serves as a case study in how the two worldviews conflict. The core of U.K policy and national security strategy continues to view Russia as the biggest threat; the national security outlook by President Trump does not.
On the domestic side of the issue, there are several American elements in direct opposition to the geopolitical policy structure of President Trump. Understanding the domestic opposition to President Trump is where Kokinda/Boyd are shallow, while seeing British control behind every shadow.
In reality the domestic opposition to President Trump is the ideological left in combination with the Wall Street right. Currently the EU/U.K opposition to President Trump is in alignment with goals and objectives of the Sea Island group and the professionally republican.
Just as the Biden/Obama agenda included the targeting of President Trump for removal (Transition Integrity Project – originating group) in early January 2017, so too did another UniParty stop Trump operation begin in January 2025. We saw the latest iteration surface in the odd (at the time), narrative surrounding Qatar -vs- Israel.
The ideologically similar GOPe elements within the Sea Island network, tech and traditional Republican party, are all aligned due to opposition to Trump policy. They continue their efforts to divide elements from the larger MAGA network.
The use of the Qatar vs Israel wedge is clear within the billionaire tech/political group, and essentially distillates to 2028 positioning, JD Vance -vs- Ron DeSantis.
The battle was clear last week at TPUSA with the alligator emojis leveraging all the pressure they could toward the organization. The Ellison, Weiss, Shapiro goal was to steer Turning Point to support DeSantis. However, Erika Kirk endorsed JD Vance.
Now the alligator emojis, blind orcs for the Ellison agenda, hate TPUSA.
Posted originally on CTH on December 24, 2025 | Sundance
The European Union, France and Germany are furious at the U.S. State Department and Marco Rubio for issuing visa bans against European political figures who are involved in censorship under the guise of combating online hate and disinformation. Brussels said Wednesday it will “respond swiftly and decisively” against the “unjustified measures.”
The first EU political group to be targeted with the visa bans includes French former EU commissioner Thierry Breton, who was one of the architects of the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). Also: Imran Ahmed, the British CEO of the U.S.-based Center for Countering Digital Hate, Anna-Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon of the German non-profit HateAid, and Clare Melford, co-founder of the Global Disinformation Index.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the first five people targeted with visa bans “have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize and suppress American viewpoints they oppose.”
STATE DEPT – Free speech is among the most cherished rights we enjoy as Americans. This right, legally enshrined in our constitution, has set us apart as a beacon of freedom around the world. Even as we take action to reject censorship at home, we see troubling instances of foreign governments and foreign officials picking up the slack. In some instances, foreign officials have taken flagrant censorship actions against U.S. tech companies and U.S. citizens and residents when they have no authority to do so.
Today, I am announcing a new visa restriction policy that will apply to foreign nationals who are responsible for censorship of protected expression in the United States. It is unacceptable for foreign officials to issue or threaten arrest warrants on U.S. citizens or U.S. residents for social media posts on American platforms while physically present on U.S. soil. It is similarly unacceptable for foreign officials to demand that American tech platforms adopt global content moderation policies or engage in censorship activity that reaches beyond their authority and into the United States. We will not tolerate encroachments upon American sovereignty, especially when such encroachments undermine the exercise of our fundamental right to free speech.
This visa restriction policy is pursuant to Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes the Secretary of State to render inadmissible any alien whose entry into the Unites States “would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.” Certain family members may also be covered by these restrictions. (SOURCE)
PARIS, Dec 24 (Reuters) – The European Union, France and Germany condemned U.S. visa bans on five Europeans combating online hate and disinformation on Wednesday, after President Donald Trump’s administration took its latest swipe at long-standing allies across the Atlantic.
[…] In Brussels, Paris and Berlin, senior officials condemned the U.S. bans, and defended Europe’s right to legislate on how foreign companies operate locally.
A European Commission spokesperson said it “strongly condemns the U.S. decision”, adding: “Freedom of expression is a fundamental right in Europe and a shared core value with the United States across the democratic world.”
The spokesperson said the EU would seek answers from Washington but said it could “respond swiftly and decisively” against the “unjustified measures”.
French President Emmanuel Macron, who has been travelling across France to warn about the dangers that disinformation poses to democracy, said he had spoken with Breton and thanked him for his work.
“We will not give up, and we will protect Europe’s independence and the freedom of Europeans,” Macron said on X. (more)
Posted originally on CTH on December 22, 2025 | Sundance
To say that I am happy with President Trump’s approach toward the use of White House emissaries to conduct official business around the capture mechanisms of the administrative state would be an understatement. I’m positively thrilled to watch this untraditional approach in action.
Are there approaches, strategies and general things I would prefer to see differently? Sure, there are. However, I’m just an audience member without any need to keep gravity maintained, while figuring out ways to satisfy billionaire donors, key interests and strategic partners. On this balancing act, President Trump is doing awesome work.
President Trump is ducking and weaving through some of the deepest Machiavellian constructs, while maintaining forward progress.
To put context to it, these creeps have had four years to strategize how to control Trump and manipulate policy, with their retention of all sorts of government agencies in alignment with the status quo. Yet, remarkably President Trump is dancing through their deep state minefield, while keeping dozens of plates spinning on sticks. The use of non-traditional emissaries is really making them angry.
As we shared in 2024, the use of emissaries outside the govt framework of traditional policy was going to be a key facet in any America First agenda. Steve Witkoff is an example, leading to the clutching of pearls on a scale we have never seen.
As noted, in this not so subtle hit job against him, the State Dept built Witkoff an office, “one of its most historic offices: the high-ceiling, wood-paneled suite where Secretary of State George C. Marshall planned the reconstruction of Europe.” Yet, Witkoff has never used it; instead he prefers a small desk in a rather innocuous office in the White House.
(WSJ) – […] It is hard to pinpoint a moment in history when businessmen have held such direct sway over matters of war and peace. Since the end of World War II, Washington’s relationship with Moscow was its most carefully calibrated, helmed by spy agencies who knew their rival intimately. Seasoned diplomats rehearsed rigid protocols to prevent misunderstandings between two nuclear powers poised like scorpions in a jar. Today, those structures are virtually absent.
[…] Witkoff has declined multiple offers from the CIA for a briefing on Russia. The State Department assigned a small group of staffers to support Witkoff, but members of that team, and others across the administration, have struggled to get summaries of Witkoff’s foreign meetings.
[…] A White House official said that the decision to appoint Witkoff was Trump’s decision alone. “Suggesting that foreign countries had any input on this is absurd,” the official said. Rubio in a statement said Witkoff is doing an “incredible job” and that he “understands the objectives and gets things done on behalf of the President and the American people.”
[…] Witkoff said he has his own, tight-knit team within the government: “We develop a thesis on how to be successful,” he said. “So I don’t need to travel around with a zillion people.”
[…] In an Oval Office meeting in the first weeks of the administration, Kellogg briefed the president and others on a plan to end the war. “You take Ukraine,” Trump told him. “I’ve got Russia.” Witkoff wasn’t in the room.
Days later, Kellogg got a message *from a colleague on the National Security Council: Witkoff had received security clearance for a Moscow trip.
[*NOTE: I’ll bet a donut that National Security Council person was the chair, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz. Which emphasizes exactly why CTH said Mike Waltz was the wrong pick for the position.]
[…] Kellogg later learned from a reporter that the Kremlin had complained to the White House about his *daughter’s support for Ukraine, he said.
[NOTE: Unbeknownst to most, Lt General Keith Kellogg’s daughter is Meaghan Mobbs, who is president of the RT Weatherman Foundation. In advance of the first congressional appropriation, and likely with feedback from her father, Lt General Keith Kellogg, MsMobbs stood up a Ukraine relief organization which benefits from the Ukraine support money sent by Congress. In essence, Kellogg’s family has a financial stake in continuing the conflict and continuing to receive money from Congress.]
[…] For decades, senior American government officials visiting Russia would be briefed from a book of guidelines known as “Moscow Rules.” The document outlines the myriad ways the country’s security agents would try to surveil, entrap, compromise and recruit American visitors. It had been recently updated to reflect the security services’ increasingly aggressive posture, particularly the unit responsible for tracking Americans, the Department for Counter Intelligence, or DKRO. One important rule, say the officials who helped craft it: “There are no coincidences.”
Ahead of his trip, the CIA offered to brief Witkoff; he declined. Nor was he accompanied by an interpreter: He had been told that Russia’s president wouldn’t allow him to bring another person into the meeting.
A White House official said he participated in multiple briefings before his first trip to Russia, including Trump’s intelligence briefing. The CIA regularly briefs him on other issues like Gaza—but not Russia. (read more)
Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin has long said publicly he does not consider America or the American people to be adversaries of Russia. Instead, Vladimir Putin views the CIA as his adversary; he is always clear to draw the distinction.
The Deep State does not like President Trump’s use of emissaries to conduct foreign policy. In fact, they oppose it strongly; they hate it.
That is exactly why this approach is needed, and it is very good to see it being done.
CTH AUGUST 2024 – The Washington DC Intelligence Community (IC) actively work to isolate the Office of the President. This is an almost impossible dynamic to avoid, caused by an entrenched and ideological adversary who has dug themselves deep into the apparatus of government.
The “emissary” is the person who carries the word of President Trump to any person identified by President Trump. The emissary is very much like a tape recording of President Trump in human form. The emissary travels to a location, meets a particular person or group, and then recites the opinion of the President. The words spoken by the emissary, are the words of President Trump.
The IC cannot inject themselves into this dynamic; that is why it is so valuable.
The emissary then hears the response from the intended person or group, repeats it back to them to ensure he/she will return with clarity of intent as expressed, and then returns to the Office of the President and repeats the reply for the President. The emissary recites back exactly what he was /is told.
This process is critical when you understand how thoroughly compromised the full Executive Branch is. More importantly, this process becomes even more critical when you accept the Intelligence Community will lie to the Office of the President to retain their power and position. (read more)
Posted originally on CTH on December 21, 2025 | Sundance
Appearing on Fox News to discuss the Ukraine v Russia conflict, Finland President Alexander Stubb is questioned about the conflicting U.S. intelligence reports pushed by Reuters saying Russia will invade Europe, versus DNI Gabbard saying Russia has no capability or intent to invade Europe.
President Stubb notes his agencies work closely with U.S. intelligence and in his view, Tulsi Gabbard is correct regarding President Vladimir Putin’s intention. WATCH:
Posted originally on CTH on December 21, 2025 | Sundance
Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has agreed to hold elections if there is a ceasefire. However, Eastern Ukraine citizens, those currently living in the Donbas region, who are supportive of Russia, will not be permitted to vote.
This creates a rather bizarre official hypocrisy within the Zelenskyy regime. The official position of Zelenskyy is that Eastern Ukraine will never be accepted as a part of the Russian federation.
Zelenskyy has recently noted, with EU leadership support, that his government will never recognize Eastern Ukraine as part of the Russian federation. However, this same region, approximately 20% of Ukraine, will not be permitted to participate in his controlled election.
Essentially, any Ukraine resident who does not support Zelenskyy will not be permitted to vote in any election, if any election is ever permitted. Additionally, Zelenskyy notes that “there is the practice of voting abroad,” however, any region not controlled by Zelenskyy cannot submit votes.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy – “It is not up to Putin to decide when or in what format elections in Ukraine will take place, because these elections are exclusively for Ukrainian citizens. Therefore, he will certainly not influence anything, let alone the outcome.
Voting is carried out by citizens of Ukraine who are within the country, on Ukrainian-controlled territory. Here, we can ensure fair and transparent elections. There is also the practice of voting abroad. Elections cannot be held in territories not controlled by Ukraine, because it is obvious how they would be conducted – just as Russia always does.
Overall, elections depend on two factors: security and legislation. Security must be addressed; this is the top priority. It is important that our military personnel, who are defending the country, are able to vote. Every citizen has an absolute right to vote.
We have already discussed this with our U.S. partners; they raised this issue. If they raise it, it means they know how to help us ensure safe elections. This, primarily, could involve a ceasefire, or bringing the war to an end, or a ceasefire, at least for the duration of the elections.” {source}
We are moving at a fairly rapid pace, and our team in Florida has been working with the American side. European representatives were also invited. These negotiations are constructive and this matters. Much depends on whether Russia feels the need to end the war for real – it must not be a rhetorical or political game on Russia’s part. Unfortunately, the real signals coming from Russia remain only negative: assaults along the frontline, Russian war crimes in border areas, and continued strikes against our infrastructure. It is essential that the world does not remain silent about all of this. {source}
[…] Peace is better than war, but not at any cost, because we have already paid a high price. What matters for us is a just, durable peace – one that cannot be violated by another whim of Putin or any other Putin-like figure. It is extremely important to have strong security guarantees in place to prevent even the thought or the physical ability to come back to us with aggression.
I do not see the Budapest Memorandum as an agreement; I see it as nothing more than a piece of paper, because our territories were occupied, and so many people were killed. And this agreement did not protect us. I do not consider it strong or effective.
Therefore, for me, an agreement is not just about signing a document. One must know the details: what will happen if the Russians come with aggression and launch another war. How will the Americans and Europeans respond? How will our partners respond? What deterrence package will Ukraine have? What will be present on Ukrainian territory? How will our army be equipped? How strong will it be, and what reserves will we have? What can we count on? What sanctions package will be imposed simultaneously on the aggressor? {source}
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 