Posted originally on CTH on January 1, 2026 | Sundance |
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Ukraine did not target the personal residence of Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin, “according to U.S. officials.” However, Russia captured one of the drones intact and have said they were able to “extract a file containing a flight plan from the navigation unit” which they plan to share with the Trump administration through established channels. {LINK}
WSJ – WASHINGTON—U.S. national-security officials said Wednesday that Ukraine didn’t target Russian President Vladimir Putin or one of his residences in an alleged drone operation, challenging Moscow’s assertion that Kyiv sought to kill the Russian leader.
That conclusion is supported by a Central Intelligence Agency assessment that found no attempted attack against Putin had occurred, according to a U.S. official briefed on the intelligence. The CIA declined to comment.
The U.S. found that Ukraine had been seeking to strike a military target located in the same region as Putin’s country residence but not close by, the official said. (read more)
Who are we going to believe, Russian “special service” operations or anonymous “U.S. Intelligence Officials”?
Unfortunately, this question is no longer easy to answer given the history of the U.S. Intelligence Community, and yes, that includes the current embedded IC officials within the National Security Council, DNI and CIA even with Marco Rubio, Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe in position.
I would be very surprised if the U.S. Intelligence Community would be honest with President Trump on this issue if, and that is a big “if”, they even factually had any specific intelligence about it. [This WSJ narrative could be fake news]
Again, CTH will also assert the likelihood that Volodymyr Zelenskyy likely didn’t carry out the attack; everything about the timing of it during his meeting with President Trump just doesn’t fit. Instead, it is more likely British intelligence, specifically MI6 carried out the attack, timed specifically for the Trump/Zelenskyy meeting.
In context, there have been several attacks against Russia timed with negotiations. CTH has noted that each instance of closer agreement during Russia/Ukraine negotiations (Turkey) or U.S/Ukraine negotiations (Turkey and Paris) there have been attacks into Russia that seemed to carry a motive from an external third party.
U.S. media have said the attack on Putin may be a lie; however, with physical evidence from the defense operation, it is less likely Russia just made up the attack. At this moment in the conflict, Putin doesn’t need domestic propaganda.
CONTEXT: British intelligence previously confirmed their participation in the successful Ukraine drone attack against long-range Russian bombers. That operation, highly controversial at the time, was previously confirmed by President Trump saying the U.S. was not informed in advance.
The “coalition of the willing” has also expanded. Outside the Ukraine regime, the current group making up the “coalition of the willing” includes: the U.K, France, Germany, Canada and Australia. It is worth noting the additions are part of the British commonwealth (Canada, Australia).
Most observers note that Ukraine President Zelenskyy is not an independent actor in the warfare decisions as carried out from within Ukraine itself. In fact, British intelligence has now replaced U.S. intelligence for providing the majority of the satellite guidance systems, targeted systems and missile operations. German and French intelligence have been closely coordinating with the U.K. on behalf of European Union stakeholders.
Europe, specifically the British MI6 intelligence service, have recently espoused their #1 priority is to defeat Russia using the proxy that Ukraine provides.
The newly appointed head of MI6, Blaise Metreweli (pictured right), formerly known by her position as “Q”, is literally the granddaughter of factual Ukraine Nazi, Constantine Dobrowolski.
As head of MI6, Metreweli has specifically stated the U.K wants war with Russia. Metreweli’s entire family has Ukraine roots.
So, with full context applied it is entirely likely that both Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy are not lying. Putin was attacked, but Ukraine -as defined as Zelenskyy- didn’t do it.
The most likely scenario is that U.K intelligence elements inside Ukraine again used the opportunity of the Trump-Zelenskyy negotiation meeting to carry out the attack against Russian President Putin. The motive is obvious.
Beyond the ideological component, the economies of the U.K/EU are now increasingly dependent on their defense spending as was recognized with the severe contraction of the German economy in almost all sectors except those supported by defense spending.
An end to the Russia/Ukraine conflict is against the interests of the “coalition of the willing.” Additionally, an ancillary motive for both the U.K and U.S. group who support the EU effort is to keep President Trump bogged down.
I still strongly suspect the British did it, and the CIA doesn’t factually have any concrete intelligence to prove or dismiss this strongest motivational likelihood.
Posted originally on CTH on January 1, 2026 | Sundance
The tenuous legal theory permitting the U.S. government to conduct surveillance on U.S. citizen data (emails, texts, phone calls, messages etc.) rests on the unconstitutional ability of the government to intercept your “private papers” with the use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, specifically FISA-702. The “702” aspect is the term for U.S. citizen intercepted.
The authority for the United States government to capture the electronic records of all Americans without warrant falls under the auspices of FISA-702. The current authority expires in April of 2026. The 702 authorities have been abused to conduct political surveillance for just about everything in Washington DC. Millions of unauthorized searches have been identified; it is unconstitutional.
Politico, an outlet for the concerns of the administrative state, begins the new year by noting there is increased resistance to the reauthorization. However, in order to carry out the domestic national security agenda of the Trump administration, the Deep State considers JD Vance, Marco Rubio and others as likely supporters for reauthorization.
(Politico) – […] During the last reauthorization debate in 2024, then-candidate Trump urged Congress to “kill” the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the larger spy law that Section 702 is nested under. Trump’s decision frustrated supporters of the program — in part because they believe he conflated the foreign-target spy program with the broader surveillance law that was not up for reauthorization.
A crucial Biggs-sponsored House amendment that would have added a warrant requirement for any communications involving Americans failed on a 212-212 tie, with Speaker Mike Johnson casting a rare and decisive vote to kill it.
Now the spy powers fight is a major headache for Johnson, who infuriated privacy hawks with his 2024 amendment vote after having advocated for more surveillance guardrails as a former member of the Judiciary Committee.
Judiciary Committee Republicans — led by Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, a close Trump ally — have started discussing how to approach the reauthorization during their weekly meetings. Jordan said in an interview he is again hoping to impose a warrant requirement for searches involving Americans as well as a ban on data brokers selling consumer information to law enforcement.
He said he has “had some discussions over this past year with some members of the administration” on this issue and plans to meet alongside House Intelligence Committee Chair Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) with White House officials on the matter early next year.
Lawmakers on both sides of the debate are carefully watching Crawford, who opposed the warrant requirement in 2024 — along with every other House Intelligence Committee Republican. But Johnson has since added five Republicans to the panel who each voted for the Biggs amendment.
A committee spokesperson said Crawford is working with House leadership, Jordan, the Senate and the administration “to determine the best way forward to extend 702 authority.”
There are still, however, a majority of Intelligence Committee Republicans who are working to extend the program without adding a warrant requirement — and they are hoping administration officials whom they view as allies, including Vice President JD Vance, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, will be able to sway Trump. (read more)
Some administrative state defenders will argue this issue with me. However, having researched almost every aspect to the construct, and the argument, I am confident FISA-702 authority underpins the much bigger, quasi-constitutional justification for the wholesale collection of U.S. citizen metadata. Without the 702 authority, the legal justification for the apparatus of surveillance no longer exists. It really is that simple.
The only way the government can justify the capture of U.S. Citizen data is if there is some quasi-constitutional or national security reason for it. That’s where FISA-702 comes in.
Take away “702” search authority, and the data collection argument collapses; ANY “incidental” search of the database then loses any plausible legal justification. 702 is the camel’s nose under the tent that forms the baseline for all data records to be intercepted, stored and ultimately available for review.
This is a very key component to fully understand. Most practical applications of surveillance are contingent upon the capture of electronic records for tracking. Ex. – if domestic travel records are considered private papers (never argued yet), then government agencies have no right to exploit them without a valid search warrant underpinned by a national security justification. The government, not private sector – government, tracking people becomes more difficult if privacy rules are applied.
The legal aspect runs through the 4th Amendment, which -while historically undefined in the modern era- likely stirs in the background of the recent TSA decision to provide a $45 opt-out, for the use of REAL ID in domestic transit (interstate commerce application notwithstanding).
The Fourth Amendment aspect to the ‘warrantless’ government capture of American citizen records has never been fully argued in court; the modern definitions are opaque, and the govt has a vested interest in retaining the untested status quo.
The Intelligence Community (IC) has told Congress, particularly the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, that all hell will break loose if they don’t reauthorize full electronic surveillance of Americans.
Congress has historically been scared of the “seven ways from Sunday” IC. However, now Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is attempting to change things; specifically change things as they pertain to the domestic use of the intelligence agencies.
As the counterargument is made, House Speaker Mike Johnson, and all of the key participants, are siloed from understanding that 702 has nothing to do with incidental collection of American data, whilst the honorable IC were doing foreign intercepts.
According to intelligence experts, Speaker Johnson and most Republicans believe the IC justification, and perhaps many of them pretend not to know the alternatives. I do not buy this argument, because too much recent evidence exists to sell the story that Congress is unknowing of how this metadata capture is being continually exploited.
The only way to really test congressional knowledge is to question them. No one is questioning them.
In my opinion, the politicians and their key staff pretend they cannot fathom how the FBI, DOJ, NSD, DHS and contractors use this database to conduct political and “other” (think corporate espionage for sale) surveillance. When you engage with them, you realize they really do put on a great show proclaiming the IC is full of honorable rank-and-file, trying to walk a fine line between the 4th Amendment and exploitation. The counter position is akin to them living in a DC bubble.
The IC argument is now something akin to how we have let thousands of terrorists into the country through the southern border crisis. They say: “My god, we need to monitor the terrorists, and if you take away the 702, the foreign terror cells will activate and start killing us all. Do you want that blood on your hands?” You cannot take away surveillance tools.
Then you overlay the FISA 702 reauthorization argument, as used as a bargaining chip by the same people who don’t want to get caught up in the surveillance.
The DC conversations end up like, “Ok, we’ll reauthorize it, but you cannot use it against us – and all the sex parties and perverted stuff we do when no one is around; you must promise to keep our secrets hidden“… Then, just like the 2024 reauthorization change, they exempt themselves.
The IC agree to accept a reauthorization that exempts Congress. The IC keep the process – just promise not to use it against Congress. This outlook is what we see visible in the CR bill extension that included forbidding the FBI from seeking search warrants against Senator’s telecommunications, and this outlook is highlighted by Elise Stefanik demanding that Congress be notified if any federal candidate for office is under investigation. The Big Club protects the Big Club.
Unfortunately, ‘We The People’ do not have many friends in DC on this issue, other than a very small group in/around Tulsi Gabbard’s office, and they are constantly under attack.
After spending several years asking every representative of consequence why they support the FISA-702 process, I can tell you every one of them says they believe it is needed, because the IC tells them there are just too many domestic terror threats that need to be monitored.
It is almost impossible to find a person in DC who will forcefully try to stop FISA-702 reauthorization.
If you ask me why in hindsight, I now take the position that FISA-702 is the gateway to the massive surveillance system currently being put into place using Real ID and the AI facial recognition software provided by Palantir (CIA exploit). In essence, the gateway that allows the full-scale surveillance state, is opened by the prior authorization of FISA-702 that negates any 4th Amendment protection.
BIG Why? Because all of the surveillance mechanisms within the network being updated and enhanced by AI search and capture, comes from the IC being allowed to exploit the NSA database. That same database access allowance is the targeting mechanism for FISA-702. If warrantless searches of the NSA database were stopped, the Palantir/IC and Tech Bro collaboration could hit a brick wall.
The significance of this FISA-702 issue is much bigger than most can appreciate.
This surveillance underpinning also reconciles many of the puzzled faces when it comes to who is permitted nomination and who is not. The DC Deep State confirmed both Kash Patel to be Donald Trump’s FBI Director (SSCI), and Pam Bondi to be U.S. Attorney General (SJC). Both Bondi and Patel are expressed believers in the value of FISA-702.
You might even remember this odd question from October of 2025 that came out of nowhere. Attorney General Bondi literally read a script on the issue that was prepared for her. WATCH:
Additionally, the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard to be Director of National Intelligence was initially opposed by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), until she acquiesced and agreed there was value in the FISA-702 process.
We have a few weeks before things get really ugly, but they will get ugly.
Deals will be cut. Offers will be made. Corruption throughout this argument will run amok.
In the background of every headline, that will surface over the next two months, this issue will enmesh.
We need to watch closely how National Security Advisor Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Vice President JD Vance respond to the surfacing issues.
All of the modern surveillance mechanisms, within the U.S. government network currently being updated and enhanced by AI search and capture, come from the gateway of 702; ie. govt being allowed to exploit the NSA database against Americans.
If warrantless searches of the NSA database are legally stopped, or no longer authorized, the gate closes and the DHS, Palantir/IC and Tech Bro surveillance collaboration hit a brick wall.
Posted originally on CTH on December 30, 2025 | Sundance
A few context points on this: #1) Mark Levin has a direct and personal line to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Levin can and does talk to ‘Bibi’ all the time. #2) If Levin was confident in the position of President Trump toward Israel, this would not be needed. #3) This same level of toxicity is also being directed toward Trump’s vice-president, JD Vance.
It is exactly what I said was happening – SEE HERE.
The use of Alinsky tactics is a left-wing approach.
This sudden debate over supporting the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not surface organically in early 2025. It was planned and then stimulated as a wedge issue to divide the MAGA movement and begin a larger process to restore the Big Club control of Republican politics.
According to those inside America who are pushing the division: if you do not support the policies of Netanyahu, you are an antisemite, a hater of Israel. This wedge issue, when coupled with the three-stage Alinsky tactic to isolate, ridicule and marginalize, can be used effectively to shrink the ‘Big Tent’ and restore the Big Club.
The important element is how the toxic outcome -the division- benefits the traditional Republicans, the traditional Republican Party control officers, the traditional party “conservatives”. Put another way, division – regardless of how it is achieved, returns the party to the people who controlled the illusion of choice.
Instead of the Bush machine, Sea Island group or the Traditional GOP confronting MAGA directly, those same operatives simply use the wedge issue of Israel to say, ‘you’re either with us or against us‘.
We have been watching this unfold all year.
Who benefits? The Big REPUBLICAN Club.
♦ Turning Point USA: This narrative is a little more direct and easier to understand. A big part of the MAGA win in 2024 was due to the youth movement. The Big Club needs to manage that crowd if they are going to return to control. TPUSA represents a significant political ground game for any candidate. With thousands of chapters, Christian values and high energy, Turning Point can be a formidable Get Out the Vote (GOTV) operation.
Injecting the Israel support -vs- antisemite wedge into TPUSA is intended to diminish their influence, internally divide their membership and weaken the capability of the organization to deliver influence in the 2028 election. Ben Shapiro et al versus Tucker Carlson et al. Again, we see Alinsky methods deployed by the Big Club.
TPUSA is now the proxy representing JD Vance. Labeling TPUSA as an antisemitic group supports the objectives of the Big Club and eventually, Ron DeSantis. [NOTE: This operation will continue]
Posted originally on CTH on December 30, 2025 | Sundance
Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy appears on Fox News for an interview with Bret Baier. Within the interview Zelenskyy gives some context and details to the 20-point plan organized between him and the EU Leaders, currently being reviewed and modified by President Trump, Steve Witkoff, Marco Rubio and Jared Kushner.
The two remaining issues as described by Zelenskyy are the (1) security guarantees and (2) the territorial issue, Donbas control.
(1) Within the security guarantee proposal there are troubling signs. Zelenskyy describes it as a bilateral agreement between the USA and Ukraine, with similar constructs to the NATO alignment. A non-NATO pact between the U.S. and Ukraine that commits us to his defense if Russia would advance another attack. A 15-year guarantee committed in U.S. law through the U.S. House and Senate. This sounds troubling.
(2) On the territorial issue, regional control of the Donbas, Zelenskyy appears to be willing to cede territory but only under very limited circumstances. Zelenskyy wants a demilitarized zone under the term “a free economic zone” with specific rules.
Zelenskyy admits Ukraine cannot win the conflict against Russia without the United States involvement. Essentially without America, Russia would own the skies and be able to crush the Ukrainian army. WATCH:
Posted originally on CTH on December 30, 2025 | Sundance
During an impromptu press availability beside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Trump responded to a question about a drone attack against the personal residence of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
President Trump noted that he was informed of the attack by President Putin during an early Monday phone call between the two leaders.
According to Russian media, confirmed by Russian foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Putin’s presidential residence in the Novgorod region, more than 400 kilometers (249 miles) northwest of Moscow, was targeted by 91 drones. Russia has vowed retaliation saying, “targets had already been selected.” President Trump’s response is prompted below:
Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has denied the accusation that Ukraine carried out this particular attack. The attack took place while Zelenskyy was in Florida meeting with President Trump.
In context, there have been several attacks against Russia timed with negotiations. CTH has noted that each instance of closer agreement during Russia/Ukraine negotiations (Turkey) or U.S/Ukraine negotiations (Turkey and Paris) there have been attacks into Russia that seemed to carry a motive from an external third party.
U.S. media have said the attack on Putin may be a lie; however, with physical evidence from the defense operation, it is less likely Russia just made up the attack. At this moment in the conflict, Putin doesn’t need domestic propaganda.
CONTEXT: British intelligence previously confirmed their participation in the successful Ukraine drone attack against long-range Russian bombers. That operation, highly controversial at the time, was previously confirmed by President Trump saying the U.S. was not informed in advance.
The “coalition of the willing” has also expanded. Outside the Ukraine regime, the current group making up the “coalition of the willing” includes: the U.K, France, Germany, Canada and Australia. It is worth noting the additions are all part of the British commonwealth (U.K, Canada, Australia).
Most observers note that Ukraine President Zelenskyy is not an independent actor in the warfare decisions as carried out from within Ukraine itself. In fact, British intelligence has now replaced U.S. intelligence for providing the majority of the satellite guidance systems, targeted systems and missile operations. German and French intelligence have been closely coordinating with the U.K. on behalf of European Union stakeholders.
Europe, specifically the British MI6 intelligence service, have recently espoused their #1 priority is to defeat Russia using the proxy that Ukraine provides.
So, with full context applied it is entirely likely that both Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy are not lying.
The most likely scenario is that U.K elements inside Ukraine again used the opportunity of the Trump-Zelenskyy negotiation meeting to carry out the attack against Russian President Putin. The motive is obvious.
Beyond the ideological component, the economies of the U.K/EU are now increasingly dependent on their defense spending as was recognized yesterday with the severe contraction of the German economy in almost all sectors except those supported by defense spending.
An end to the Russia/Ukraine conflict is against the interests of the “coalition of the willing.” Additionally, an ancillary motive for the U.S. group who support the EU effort is to keep President Trump bogged down.
(Bloomberg) — President Donald Trump’s campaign to end the war in Ukraine faced new complications on Monday when Vladimir Putin said he would revise his country’s negotiating position after the Russian leader claimed Ukrainian drones targeted his residence.
Putin told Trump of his decision in a call Monday, according to the Kremlin, even as Kyiv cast the Russian allegations as a fabrication aimed at derailing the peace process.
Trump addressed the dispute while speaking to reporters in Florida, saying that Putin had told him about the purported attack during their discussion. The US president, seeming to side with Putin, said he was “very angry.”
“It’s one thing to be offensive, because they’re offensive,” Trump told reporters in Florida. “It’s another thing to attack his house. It’s not the right time to do any of that.”
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has dismissed the Russian claims as a “new lie” and warned that Moscow could be using it as an excuse to prepare an attack on government buildings in Kyiv.
Putin said Moscow intends to work closely with the US on peace efforts but would reconsider a number of previously reached agreements, Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov told Russian newswires. Ushakov added that Putin assured Trump that Moscow would look to continue working with American partners to achieve peace and that the two leaders agreed to maintain their dialogue. (more)
Posted originally on CTH on December 29, 2025 | Sundance
The sense you get from reviewing the interactions is that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is nervous in his need to maintain very close support from U.S. President Donald Trump. When we review the interaction, we see Netanyahu’s praise of President Trump through a prism of tenuous dependency.
Netanyahu needs to retain a close and favorable position of influence; yet there is something in the engagement that seems to indicate an unease, a nervousness visible within the Prime Minister of Israel.
The moment at 10:48 is important, “Someone said in the room: if you don’t have Trump“… and the U.S. President strategically decided to let that thought trail off without finishing. However, in context it was very clear what would have come next if Trump didn’t restrain himself. “Someone said in the room: if you don’t have Trump”… you don’t have Netanyahu, was likely the end of that thought, and Trump isn’t wrong. Benjamin Netanyahu’s body language, facial expressions and overall demeanor imply agreement.
Bibi knows the unspoken words are accurate, so does everyone who supports Bibi – especially those pro-Israel voices inside the USA. Also, within that geopolitical dynamic, you will find President Trump’s leverage and an understanding of the behavior for those who support Netanyahu’s government. WATCH:
The non-pretending review of Netanyahu’s purpose for the visit, is to get additional support from President Trump for more military action against Iran. President Trump knows the intents and motives behind the shaped information from Netanyahu, the Israeli government and U.S. donors and voices.
President Trump emphasized strongly how the Arab coalition supports the elimination of Hamas as a terrorist threat, not just the United States. This emphasis on retaining the original peace agreement continues to pull the narrative away from the U.S. having to give support to ongoing Israel military action in Gaza. “If Hamas doesn’t disarm voluntarily” the Arab countries will disarm them President Trump suggested.
Benjamin Netanyahu is not going to be able to pull the Trump administration into military engagement in Iran. That part is clear from the tone and presentation of Netanyahu as well as the space between the words of Trump.
Posted originally CTH on December 29, 2025 | Sundance
Outlining why there literally is not enough time for a lengthy dual-track legislative trade policy to be constructed, Ambassador Jamieson Greer gives a great encapsulation of the urgency behind the trade policies, tariffs and negotiations between the U.S. and trade partners.
If President Donald Trump did not win in 2024, another four years of parasitic trade policy would have crossed the Rubicon of U.S. manufacturing recovery. The urgently applied tariff strategy gave the administration breathing room to reestablish domestic economic growth. USTR Greer and President Trump are now fine-tuning the tariffs country by country, sector by sector, to achieve ultimate economic benefit. WATCH:
Posted originally on CTH on December 29, 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 29, 2025 | Sundance
Following a viral investigative report by independent journalist Nick Shirley on the Somali community fraud in Minneapolis, Minnesota, FBI Director Kash Patel announces a surge in FBI resources to the region to follow-up.
VIA Kash Patel – “The FBI is aware of recent social media reports in Minnesota. However, even before the public conversation escalated online, the FBI had surged personnel and investigative resources to Minnesota to dismantle large-scale fraud schemes exploiting federal programs. Fraud that steals from taxpayers and robs vulnerable children will remain a top FBI priority in Minnesota and nationwide.
To date, the FBI dismantled a $250 million fraud scheme that stole federal food aid meant for vulnerable children during COVID. The investigation exposed sham vendors, shell companies, and large-scale money laundering tied to the Feeding Our Future network.
The case led to 78 indictments and 57 convictions. Defendants included Abdiwahab Ahmed Mohamud, Ahmed Ali, Hussein Farah, Abdullahe Nur Jesow, Asha Farhan Hassan, Ousman Camara, and Abdirashid Bixi Dool, each charged for roles ranging from wire fraud to money laundering and conspiracy.
These criminals didn’t just engaged in historic fraud, but tried to subvert justice as well. Abdimajid Mohamed Nur and others were charged for attempting to bribe a juror with $120,000 in cash. Those responsible pleaded guilty and were sentenced, including a 10-year prison term and nearly $48 million in restitution in related cases.
The FBI believes this is just the tip of a very large iceberg. We will continue to follow the money and protect children, and this investigation very much remains ongoing.
Furthermore, many are also being referred to immigrations officials for possible further denaturalization and deportation proceedings where eligible.” (read more)
Generally speaking, the FBI doesn’t usually activate unless the issue at hand begins to become a risk or threat to Washington DC. The FBI usually acts as a proactive defense mechanism for the interests of federal government.
Posted originally on CTH on December 28, 2025 | Sundance
Prior to the 2012 Republican presidential primary, many conservative Americans -including myself- were confused by the consistent illusion of choice offered in republican presidential candidates. The Republican party’s successful installation of Mitt Romney was the final straw.
Going into the 2016 Republican presidential primary, we became more attune to how the illusion of choice is created. By closely following the Republican party’s assemblies, tracking the participants, researching the networks and looking at how the Republican party professionals modified their election rules at a state level, revealed the closed system used to create the illusion of choice.
The GOP winter meeting in Washington DC, December of 2014, outlined the playbook. The sequencing of state elections, the distribution of delegates (proportional or winner-take-all) and various internal mechanisms all play a part. This led to our first breakthrough – we began to understand the “splitter strategy”.
A small group of internal party officers in combination with powerful established politicians and major donors could coordinate a party objective to support the “acceptable candidate.”
The outcome of the GOP 2014 winter meeting was a pathway for Jeb Bush in 2016. The outcome of the DNC construct was a pathway for Hillary Clinton. Regardless of which wing of the UniParty system won the election, the actionable outcome in policy would be the same; the institutions of DC maintained, and network affluence apportioned according to the victor.
In this form of party democracy voting is an outcome of the illusion of choice. The real decisions were/are not being made by voters. The party system determines the candidate. DNC or RNC the policy outcome is a few degrees different, but the direction is the same.
In 2016 the left-wing of the Uniparty would diminish any challenger to Hillary, Bernie Sanders would be controlled. The right-wing of the Uniparty would diminish any challenger to Jeb, divide the voting base and use party rules to clear his path.
The opaque nature of this party control system became clearer when the last GOP candidate entered the race. In the clearest exhibition of controlled politics in modern history, Donald Trump was the wildcard.
Mainstream “conservative” voices, what a later vernacular would describe as “influencers,” began exposing their ideological special interest in this political control system through opposition to Trump, the popular people’s choice candidate.
You know the history thereafter. However, the problem for the GOP wing in 2016 was not Donald Trump per se’, their biggest problem was that American ‘conservatives‘ had discovered their playbook. The illusion of choice was now becoming very well understood by a subset of voters later named MAGA voters, the original “silent majority” was silent no more.
This review is simply context; however, it is important context if we are to understand exactly where we are in late 2025 going into the midterm election in 2026. [Star Wars (2016), the Empire Strikes Back (2020), the Return of the Jedi (2024)]
The fourth chapter of this conflict is now upon us. It is a battlefield that has been unfolding all year.
When you understand the larger objectives behind what is happening, you can clearly see -even predict- each of the moves.
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 