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.
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.
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 