Posted originally on CTH on December 9, 2025 | Sundance
President Trump sat down for an extensive interview with Dasha Burns of Politico. Despite the ideological outlook of Politico, the interview itself was remarkably absent of combative antagonism. The result is a good review of the current positions of President Trump as they relate to the rest of the world.
The Ukraine-Russia conflict is the immediate issue that is discussed within the interview. President Trump answers some direct questions about who is currently most responsible for continuing the conflict and is asked his opinion directly on Ukraine not holding elections.
President Trump notes Russian President Vladimir Putin is in the strongest position within the conflict and carries the strongest leverage into any ceasefire negotiations. Trump also frames the need for the bloodshed to end with a much greater sense of urgency than any of the EU leaders or Zelenskyy. Additionally sharing the opinion that Ukraine needs to have an election to showcase the will of the Ukrainian people in the leadership of Volodymyr Zelenskyy. WATCH:
Yesterday, Ukraine President Volodymr Zelenskyy traveled to London to meet with British PM Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron.
As expected, part of the Zelenskyy meeting with the “coalition of the willing” included a briefing by Ukraine negotiator Rustem Umerov, the secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, who held detailed consultations for three days last week in Miami with Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.
President Zelenskyy then departed London traveling with his media entourage to Brussels for the next round of discussions with the European Union stakeholders, financiers and politicians. During the trip Zelenskyy told his media stenographers, “Under our laws, under international law — and under moral law — we have no right to give anything away. That is what we are fighting for.”
The U.K, France and Germany support Zelenskyy’s position that he is not going to concede any territory to the Russian Federation, specifically the 30% of the Donbas area in Eastern Ukraine currently at the heart of the physical conflict.
The 30% issue surrounds the Donetsk region in Ukraine, which includes the cities of Kramatorsk and Sloviansk. Russia is currently pushing deep into fortified Ukraine resistance in this region with a population of around 100,000. Zelenskyy claims losing this area would allow Putin to invade the Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kharkiv regions.
Historically, this Donbas area was part of a brutal long-term Ukraine civil war between the pro-Russia eastern Ukrainian citizens and the pro-EU western aligned Ukrainian army. Russia’s current position is for Ukraine to cede the entire Donbas to Russia as part of the ceasefire agreement, or Russia will continue forward conflict military operations until successful.
Seeing things through the pragmatic prism of inevitability, President Trump’s view appears to be that this Donbas area will be lost to Russia one way or the other. So, the best scenario to stop the killing is for Ukraine to give up this territory as part of the ceasefire terms. Zelenskyy, with support of the EU, France, Germany and U.K says a firm “no.”
Politico reports that Zelenskyy said in August of this year “it would take Russia four-years to fully occupy the Donbas,” subsequently a lot of killing would take place during this process. President Trump is trying to stop the brutal “killing” part of that dynamic by getting the negotiation to the point of concession, but the EU team view any land area concession as positive affirmation for Russia to continue threatening Europe.
♦ On the ‘Security Guarantee‘ issue, this is where a quagmire is presented by European leaders.
From a pragmatic standpoint a European demilitarized zone, stood up and supported by EU military forces would appear to be the best solution. However, the “coalition of the willing” say they are willing to put security troops into Ukraine, but only if the USA will defend them if attacked by Russia. In essence, quasi-NATO forces on a non-NATO country, that if attacked would draw the entirety of NATO into the conflict, including the United States.
The U.K, France, Germany and EU Commission want a security structure similar to NATO for Ukraine that legally binds the United States to defend their interests if the ceasefire does not hold. President Trump has rejected this construct as yet another way for Europe to pull the U.S into a conflict zone that is not in our vital national security interests.
The ceasefire proposal structured by Trump, Witkoff and Kushner – seemingly supported by Russia, does not permit Ukraine to join NATO; however, EU membership is entirely up to the EU and people of Ukraine to decide. If Ukraine joins the EU, then EU forces alone should provide the security guarantee, not NATO which includes the U.S. and Canada.
(Washington Post) […] Zelensky said Ukraine will not surrender its territory in the eastern Donbas region — not to hasten peace talks, not to satisfy Washington’s push for compromise and not under pressure from Moscow’s continuing military onslaught.
Ukraine and Europe have insisted that a ceasefire be declared along current battle lines, but Russia has refused. Putin has claimed, illegally, to have annexed four entire regions of Ukraine (in addition to Crimea, which Russia seized in 2014) — far more territory than his military forces have been able to occupy.
Some Ukrainian officials held out hope that the negotiations could still bear fruit.
The proposal “is closer to be doable for Ukraine, but not easy and not finished,” said a senior Ukrainian official familiar with recent discussions, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly. (read more)
President Zelenskyy, whose term in office has long expired, departed London with his EU media entourage heading to Brussels. The collective group is trying to figure out how to keep America tied to their stakeholder interests in Ukraine.
The European leaders are manufacturing a construct that is not supported by the vast majority of the citizens within the EU, even within Ukraine itself. Meanwhile back in the USA, congress (House and Senate majorities) supports the position of Ukraine and the EU against the interests of President Trump and the voting majority.
There are trillions at stake.
The ruling class is supporting Zelenskyy, while the killing of the non-ruling class continues on the fields of Ukraine.
Posted originally on CTH on December 8, 2025 | Sundance
Following three days of negotiations in Florida (Thur, Fri, Sat) between President Trump emissaries Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, and Ukraine emissaries Rustem Umierov and Andrii Hnatov, the group then held a 2-hour phone call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
No substantial progress was reported. However, military officials Umierov and Hnatov then flew to meet Zelenskyy in London where French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz are assembled to discuss alternatives to ending the conflict.
Starmer, Macron and Merz form the core of the “coalition of the willing,” an EU group who have unilaterally proclaimed they were willing to send the military of the U.K, France and Germany into Ukraine so long as President Trump would backstop their troops with promises of U.S. intervention if things went badly. Trump would not make that commitment.
Zelenskyy Inc, Macron, Starmer and Merz do not want to end the proxy fight against Russia. Together with the EU leadership of NATO, the coalition of the willing want to retain the conflict. However, the problem for the four leaders is that without strong USA support, the citizens of their EU countries will rise up against them.
Even with NATO missiles and transferred technological assistance, they ultimately need the American military in order to ensure Putin doesn’t squish them. President Trump wants the proxy war to end – loggerheads are reached.
Russian President Vladimir Putin does not seem to be paying too much attention to the bureaucratic speeches and instead is continuing forward advancement [SEE HERE] to secure the territory in Ukraine with or without a negotiated settlement.
The Russian Federation has presented its terms; the Russian terms for cessation are known; the rest is up to the EU, NATO, USA and Ukraine to work out.
At this point the problem is over-talking and FUBAR, or, well, a typically European situation. So, Putin keeps going, more Ukraine troops are killed, while Putin awaits the endless conversations that he predicted would result in more endless conversations. To be fair, Putin’s cold approach appears to be a mostly accurate interpretation of what he expected.
ZELENSKYY – “In recent days, representatives of Ukraine held substantive discussions with envoys of the US President – and now National Security and Defence Council Secretary Rustem Umierov and Chief of the General Staff Andrii Hnatov are en route to Europe. I expect detailed information from them on everything that was said to the American envoys in Moscow, and on the nuances the Americans are prepared to modify in negotiations with us and with the Russians.” (link)
By my count in the past two weeks, Witkoff and Kushner have spent nine days in direct all-day negotiations with various Ukraine officials from various institutions of Zelenskyy’s government, with a one-day trip to Moscow sandwiched between them. Yet, western media continually proclaim the U.S. delegation of Kushner and Witkoff are ignoring the Ukrainians.
This is what I call the ‘paralysis of analysis’, or the part of every negotiation where things get so granular in detail that the larger objective is lost.
While the Ukraine team argues about whether a creek or a railroad track should determine the current point of conflict, another 250 Ukrainian soldiers have their limbs torn from their bodies and lie dead in the mud. Today they will meet in London to argue over telephone pole ownership, while another battalion is fed to the meat grinder.
CNN frames a narrative that President Trump is unsympathetic and frustrated with Zelenskyy:
(VIA CNN) – […] Trump criticized Zelensky on Sunday after talks between US and Ukrainian negotiators over the weekend in Miami ended with unresolved questions over security guarantees, territorial issues and continued concern that the US proposal tilts in Russia’s favor.
“We’ve been speaking to [Russian] President [Vladimir] Putin and we’ve been speaking to Ukrainian leaders, including… President Zelensky, and I have to say that I’m a little bit disappointed that President Zelensky hasn’t yet read the proposal, that was as of a few hours ago,” Trump said. (more)
President Trump is reviewing the issue through the prism of “hours” because he knows that as each hour passes that’s more dead young men…. And FOR WHAT?
Meanwhile, Volodymyr Zelenskyy is traveling around Europe stopping for tea and crumpets with Macron, Starmer and Merz in London today. Think about the upside-down priorities here.
Bread and Circuses – With Servants Patiently Waiting (Dec 6, 2025)
Posted originally on Dec 8, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |
President Trump released the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) of the US, released by the White House on December 4th, 2025, marks a potentially profound shift in US foreign policy. He has criticized Europe and insisted on ending the perception and preventing the reality, of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance. This 33-page document specifically embraces an ‘America First’ doctrine, rejecting global hegemony and ideological Neocon crusades that are always in favor of war and world dominance. The Neocons constantly claim Putin wants to invade Europe so we have to expand NATO to their border to prevent him from doing so as if Russia was still communist from the old cold war days.
Trump is shifting the focus to a more pragmatic, transactional realism focused on protecting core national interests rather than Neocon desire to conquer the world. In 2023, Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), two dangerous Neocons, authored legislation requiring that any presidential decision to exit NATO must have either two-thirds Senate approval or be authorized through an act of Congress. These Neocons pushed this legislation and the got it to pass stuffed in the fiscal 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, which President Joe Biden signed into law probably with an autopen fed into the machine by Antony Blinken or Victoria Nuland.
I would argue that Trump can sidestep these Neocons citing presidential authority over foreign policy. Congress can try, but the Constitution does not clearly give Congress the power to force a president to remain in a treaty such as NATO. This is one of the biggest unresolved constitutional gaps in U.S. foreign-relations law. Article II gives the president power to make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate (two-thirds vote). It says nothing about who has the power to terminate treaties.
Presidents Have Terminated Treaties Unilaterally
If we look at history and precedent, presidents of both parties have withdrawn from treaties without prior congressional approval, including:
1854 – Franklin Pierce withdrew from the U.S.–Swiss treaty
1899 – McKinley ended parts of the U.S.–China treaty
1979 – Carter unilaterally withdrew from the U.S.–Taiwan defense treaty
2002 – George W. Bush exited the ABM Treaty
2020 – Donald Trump withdrew from the Open Skies Treaty
Congress never successfully blocked any of these actions. Consequently, this long-standing practice builds a strong historical precedent (though not formally adjudicated). Therefore, this Neocon act introduced by Tim Kaine and Marco Rubio, which in their mind would send everyone else’s children to die for their personal hatred and glory, is by no means “airtight,” and would expose the bloodthirsty Neocons for what they really are since this law sets up a direct constitutional conflict with Congress if a president does try to withdraw as I have recommended.
Our American children are at risk just as they were coming home in body-bags from Vietnam when President Johnson lied to the American people admitted we were never attacked and Robert McNamara who admitted before he died that they were wrong and thought Russia was involved confirming they were not and it was “just a civil war.” I just had a meeting with a vet from the Iraq War who lost his leg all for another lie – weapons of mass destruction that never existed.
These Neocons are consumed with power and hatred and that is a lethal combination. They have usurped US foreign policy for personal glory and hatred. This has been a strategic coup by unelected Neocons who have created endless wars for personal vendettas. Approximately 35% of the current publicly held U.S. national debt can be attributed to the direct costs of past wars and the interest accrued on that borrowed war spending. The average American is paying for the Neocon warmongering with higher mortgage rates because this war expenditure continually expands and will never be paid off. These Neocons have undermined the living standards of the people all for their personal hatreds and glory to rule the world.
Trump should declare he was pulling out of NATO; I would force Congress into a legal position and launch an investigation of any Senator or Representative to ensure that they are not profiting in any way from the war expenditures they are advocating.
The Supreme Court has generally held that institutional conflicts between the branches are political questions best resolved through the political process rather than through judicial intervention. But we are dealing with Neocons here who have engaged in a covert coup of American foreign policy, which to me is treason. Perhaps we need Treason Trials like Roman Emperors Tiberius and Caligula to get our country back from the brink.
In court, you have to have what is called “standing” to bring a case. I cannot bring a case against you for not paying your child’s college bills. Only your child would have “standing” to bring the action provided you did not guarantee the college. Here, the only party with standing would be Congress itself, but it is not clear that the Republicans in Congress would support such a suit. If they did, they you know who should be hauled out of Capital Hill in chains.
It would take Congress which has the strongest standing to sue over a presidential withdrawal from NATO. Perhaps you could argue Americans who own property in NATO countries might be able to claim standing. This type of claim is less certain.
Even if the Supreme Court took up the case, it’s not clear who would win because the constitutional question is murky. Congress has never mounted a direct legal challenge to a president withdrawing from a treaty. Article II gives the president power to make treaties with the consent of Congress but it does NOT give the power to Congress to even negotiate a treaty.
Article 5 under the NATO treaty is fundamentally voluntary in its implementation. This is a critical and often misunderstood point. The Wording of Article 5 Itself states:
“…each of them will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force…”
The crucial phrase is “such action as it deems necessary.” This grants each member nation the sovereign right to decide what form its assistance will take. There is no prescribed, automatic obligation to declare war or deploy troops. Rubio thinks that it would not be voluntary and has no problem sleeping a night knowing your son or daughter will die for his personal hatred. All my friend from high school who died for Vietnam all for lies. As McNamara said, it was just a civil war and that is Ukraine which we instigated thanks to Victoria Nuland, John. McCain, and Antony Blinken.
Meanwhile, Trump can also undermine NATO without formally leaving, even if he chooses not to follow my recommendation and get out. He could refuse U.S. support by withholding ambassadors or keeping troops from participating in military exercises. While several lawmakers in February called for new legislative measures to guard against these risks, nothing serious has materialized since. Again, any lawmaker who sells out our country for war should be removed from any government position whatsoever.
“Following Trump’s threats in his first term, the Congress — recognizing the vital importance of NATO — acted on a bipartisan basis to prevent any future presidents from unilaterally withdrawing,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement. He is another Neocon. NATO is not important to America. “While Trump may resort to his old tricks, we’ll continue working to shore up NATO and stand ready to fight back against any attempts to undermine the strength of this alliance.”
Kaine, one of the authors of the NATO guardrail, slammed Trump’s rhetoric on the alliance and argued the U.S. “is safest when we link arms with our allies.” He is an idiot that peace is NEVER achieved with force. He also said: “Donald Trump’s disparaging comments about NATO are disturbing, and my hope is that the legislation we passed will ensure the United States continues to participate in this crucial alliance.”
We should stand aside, let Europe destroy itself for the third time, and then pick up the pieces but no Marshall Plan this time. I would promote legislation that prohibits any legislator from voting for war unless they have a family member that are willing to hand a gun and say here, go kill a bunch a people. They have no problem sending other people’s children to war while exempting their own.
October 13, 1960
The Third Kennedy-Nixon Presidential Debate
It has been the Neocon agenda or having bases everywhere that has undermined the economy in the face of constant US overreach as a failure that weakened America. President Kennedy said that in his campaign debate with Nixon in 1960. It was the building of basdes everywhere that increased the dollars and that brought down Bretton Woods and the gold standard all for the Neocon agenda. Kennedy’s remarks set off a gold panic in 1960 as people feared the US would contract and no longer fund the defense of Europe. Kennedy said:
“The difficulty, of course, is that we do have heavy obligations abroad, that we therefore have to maintain not only a favorable balance of trade but also send a good deal of our dollars overseas to pay our troops, maintain our bases, and sustain other economies.”
I laid out in the peace proposal that the real enemy would be the EU – not Russia. That has proven to be correct. There was even a secret meeting where Macron and Merz instructed Zelensky no peace. There is way too much money at stake in addition to all the billions flowing into the pockets of Ukrainian and EU politicians, no peace means the EU gets to keep the over $300 billion in Euroclear. If you actually look closely, you will see that the EU has violated international law for about 80% of that money belongs to private Russians, not state assets. This is all about keeping American sending billions with no accountability that EU lawmakers get their shares.
Any American legislator who votes to keep sending money to Ukraine and NATO should reveal all net wealth personally and their family including second degree. War is the MOST profitable war to enter office broke, and leave a multi-millionaire. Trump’s approach is all about ushering in a “new golden age” for the United States, which the Democrats keep trying to prevent simply because it is Trump – not that the policies are good, bad, or indifferent. Politics is no longer about the country or the people, it is to embarrass the opponent regardless of the issue just to win.
Trump’s 33-page document organizes US strategy around three pillars: Homeland defense, the Western Hemisphere, and economic renewal. Secondary focuses include selective partnerships in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.
Here are the major shifts in strategy compared to the previous strategies of not just Biden/Neocons, but also Trump’s first term:
From global cop to regional hegemon: Unlike Biden’s 2022 NSS (which emphasized alliances and great-power competition) or Trump’s 2017 version (which named China and Russia as revisionists), this document ends America’s “forever burdens” abroad. It prioritizes the Americas over Eurasia, framing Europe and the Middle East as deprioritized theaters.
Ideological retreat: Democracy promotion is explicitly abandoned – “we seek peaceful commercial relations without imposing democratic change” (tell that to the Venezuelans). Authoritarians are not judged, and the EU is called “anti-democratic.”
Confrontational ally relations: Europe faces scathing criticism for migration, free speech curbs, and risks of “civilizational erasure” (e.g., demographic shifts making nations “unrecognizable in 20 years”). The US vows to support the “patriotic” European parties resisting this, drawing Kremlin-like rhetoric accusations from EU leaders.
China policy: Acknowledges failed engagement; seeks “mutually advantageous” ties but with deterrence (e.g., Taiwan as a priority). No full decoupling, but restrictions on tech/dependencies.
Multipolar acceptance: Invites regional powers to manage their spheres (e.g., Japan in East Asia, Arab-Israeli bloc in the Gulf), signaling US restraint to avoid direct confrontations.
We are looking at a seismic shift in America’s approach to NATO. As I have said, NATO should be shut down for its sole purpose in like a Mafia protection racket. It is not there to promote peace, it keeps getting money only by constantly claiming that Russia wants to conquer Europe. It has even tried to expand into Asia to create war with China agains to keep its money flowing in endlessly. NATO is a ruthless retirement home for Neocons.
Trump has put normalizing relations with Russia among ‘core interests’ where the days of empire building are over. I have explained that only the Roman Empire achieved peace because people realized it was more beneficial to be inside the Empire with free trade than on the outside looking in. Sanction have NEVER worked even once. Neocons have constantly sought to wage economic war under the theory that will bring down their hated opponent.
The US MUST abandon Ukraine!!!!! It is far too corrupt and ONLY when the billions stop flowing into the pockets of the elite Ukrainians will this war ever come to an end. The propaganda of the NATO and the EU to keep this corruption and money flowing has been to instill fear in Europeans to convince them that Russia as an existential threat. Managing European relations with Russia will require significant US diplomatic engagement. The EU is not prepared for peace because it needs that $300 billion just to stay alive until 2027 at best.
December 2025 is a Double Directional Change and then by February we have a Panic Cycle. From January on, the dire economic conditio0n within the EU will continue to force their had to push for war with Russia and they will most likely stage a false flag.
In addition to setting the priorities for the United States focus, the report details the Trump administration perspective on the world as broken down into specific regions. The report is a brutally honest review of the current state of geopolitical benefits, risks and threats as they pertain to vital U.S. interests.
In addition to outlining a critically renewed focus on the Western Hemisphere, the Trump administration also notes the practical position of Europe, as it pertains to NATO and dependency on the U.S.A.
In a brutally honest review of the situation, the Trump administration notes Europe is increasingly losing their own identity. The fear the Europeans express about being vulnerable to Russian strength is hypocritical, in the sense that in practical outcomes the EU is purposefully weakening itself and simultaneously demanding assistance against their own weakness.
[PAGE 25] – American officials have become used to thinking about European problems in terms of insufficient military spending and economic stagnation. There is truth to this, but Europe’s real problems are even deeper.
Continental Europe has been losing share of global GDP—down from 25 percent in 1990 to 14 percent today—partly owing to national and transnational regulations that undermine creativity and industriousness. But this economic decline is eclipsed by the real and more stark prospect of civilizational erasure.
The larger issues facing Europe include activities of the European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine political liberty and sovereignty, migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife, censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence.
Should present trends continue, the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less. As such, it is far from obvious whether certain European countries will have economies and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies. Many of these nations are currently doubling down on their present path. We want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence, and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory suffocation.
This lack of self-confidence is most evident in Europe’s relationship with Russia.
European allies enjoy a significant hard power advantage over Russia by almost every measure, save nuclear weapons. As a result of Russia’s war in Ukraine, European relations with Russia are now deeply attenuated, and many Europeans regard Russia as an existential threat.
Managing European relations with Russia will require significant U.S. diplomatic engagement, both to reestablish conditions of strategic stability across the Eurasian landmass, and to mitigate the risk of conflict between Russia and European states.
It is a core interest of the United States to negotiate an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine, in order to stabilize European economies, prevent unintended escalation or expansion of the war, and reestablish strategic stability with Russia, as well as to enable the post-hostilities reconstruction of Ukraine to enable its survival as a viable state.
The Ukraine War has had the perverse effect of increasing Europe’s, especially Germany’s, external dependencies. Today, German chemical companies are building some of the world’s largest processing plants in China, using Russian gas that they cannot obtain at home.
The Trump Administration finds itself at odds with European officials who hold unrealistic expectations for the war perched in unstable minority governments, many of which trample on basic principles of democracy to suppress opposition. A large European majority wants peace, yet that desire is not translated into policy, in large measure because of those governments’ subversion of democratic processes. This is strategically important to the United States precisely because European states cannot reform themselves if they are trapped in political crisis.
Yet Europe remains strategically and culturally vital to the United States. Transatlantic trade remains one of the pillars of the global economy and of American prosperity. European sectors from manufacturing to technology to energy remain among the world’s most robust. Europe is home to cutting-edge scientific research and world-leading cultural institutions. Not only can we not afford to write Europe off—doing so would be self-defeating for what this strategy aims to achieve.
American diplomacy should continue to stand up for genuine democracy, freedom of expression, and unapologetic celebrations of European nations’ individual character and history. America encourages its political allies in Europe to promote this revival of spirit, and the growing influence of patriotic European parties indeed gives cause for great optimism.
Our goal should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory. We will need a strong Europe to help us successfully compete, and to work in concert with us to prevent any adversary from dominating Europe.
America is, understandably, sentimentally attached to the European continent — and, of course, to Britain and Ireland. The character of these countries is also strategically important because we count upon creative, capable, confident, democratic allies to establish conditions of stability and security. We want to work with aligned countries that want to restore their former greatness. (continue reading)
Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin does not see a strong Europe; instead, he sees a continent destroying itself and creating vulnerabilities that can easily be exploited.
President Trump is attempting to stop the inevitable conclusion, the outcome created throughout history, when a strong nation state is positioned right next to a vulnerable, fat, lazy and weak-minded coalition of states.
Europe would be wise to listen to President Trump now, because the American people are not willing to put our blood on the line again to protect the EU – ultimately from itself.
Posted originally on CTH on December 6, 2025 | Sundance
Deputy Secretary of State Chris Landau presents a well-articulated change in perspective from the U.S. State Department. The response comes following the EU decision to levy a compliance fine against the social media platform X.
What Christopher Landau notes as the contrast and conflict in ideological priority from the EU can just as easily be applied to the USA dynamic with Canada. As noted by Twitter user John Frank, “The same observations can easily apply to the relations with Canada, given the divergence between the US role in the military alliance with Canada, while Canada is involved in activities which work against US interests.”
At a certain point it does become necessary to distinguish exactly what values, benefits, perspectives and priorities frame the positions that determine who our U.S. allies really are, and who should benefit from that relationship.
It is good to see a structurally different perspective from the U.S. State Department that puts a bold underline under the term “western alliances.” What values are those alliances based on?
Posted originally on CTH on December 6, 2025 | Sundance
If we read between the lines in the latest update from President Trump emissary Steve Witkoff, we can clearly see the negotiations have entered into that critical phase where payments to all of the stakeholders will determine a successful outcome.
Pragmatic people have long predicted the ultimate solution to the bloodshed will only be determined once western interests get to the point where negotiators propose a long-term plan for continued financial benefit. Too many people, “stakeholders” are making money from the conflict.
From a western perspective, support for the Ukraine conflict is based on money. Therefore, the solution to the conflict requires a system where the western opportunity for financial benefit continues.
Written in polite diplomatic terms, the continued payments are identified as “the prosperity agenda which aims to support Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction, joint U.S.–Ukraine economic initiatives, and long-term recovery projects.” This is codespeak for the U.S. Senate and EU will retain a financial mechanism to exploit for personal benefit.
From the language it appears that Witkoff and Kusher are confident they can construct a financial reward system for western banks, investors, politicians and Ukraine officials that will retain the benefits of war without the ancillary ingredient of bloodshed.
If the U.S. delegation can pull this off, then Russia can gain the territory they want, corrupt Ukraine officials can keep skimming investment money, the EU can retain the power it wants to extract financial payments, American politicians can use the “long-term recovery projects” for money laundering and quasi-public/private investment banks can benefit from the exploitation of Ukraine resources.
Again, from a ‘western geopolitical perspective’, the territorial issues, security guarantees, EU membership status and the position of NATO are downstream details once the larger payment system is organized. Put another way, they are down to the stuff that really matters, the money.
STEVE WITKOFF – Readout of Meeting Between Special Envoy for Peace Steven Witkoff, Jared Kushner, Ukrainian Secretary of National Security and Defense Council Rustem Umerov, and Chief of General Staff General Andriy Hnatov
Over two days, Special Envoy for Peace Steven Witkoff and Jared Kushner met with Ukrainian Secretary of National Security and Defense Council Rustem Umerov and Chief of General Staff General Andriy Hnatov for constructive discussions on advancing a credible pathway toward a durable and just peace in Ukraine.
Today, the group had their sixth meeting over the past two weeks. Secretary Umerov reaffirmed that Ukraine’s priority is securing a settlement that protects its independence and sovereignty, ensures the safety of Ukrainians, and provides a stable foundation for a prosperous democratic future.
The participants discussed the results of recent meeting of the American side with the Russians and steps that could lead to ending this war. The American and Ukrainians also agreed on the framework of security arrangements and discussed necessary deterrence capabilities to sustain a lasting peace.
Both parties agreed that real progress toward any agreement depends on Russia’s readiness to show serious commitment to long-term peace, including steps toward de-escalation and cessation of killings.
Parties also separately reviewed the future prosperity agenda which aims to support Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction, joint U.S.–Ukraine economic initiatives, and long-term recovery projects.
American and Ukrainian parties underscored that an end to the war and credible steps toward ceasefire and de-escalation are necessary to prevent renewed aggression and to enable Ukraine’s comprehensive redevelopment plan, designed to make the nation stronger and more prosperous than before the war.
Parties will reconvene tomorrow to continue advancing the discussions.” (source)
From the Russian side of the equation the war is about ideology, national security and proactive defeat of western, mostly American, encroachment and influence. From the western side, the EU support for Ukraine was less ideological and more financially motivated.
Russia and Ukraine have paid a high price in the larger proxy war. Russia has won the physical fight. Hopefully soon the financial terms will be accepted by the western stakeholders and combat operations can cease.
Ukraine President Zelenskyy will get a nice villa in Europe and a reasonable mansion in the USA. The cocktail parties will continue with crustless cucumber sandwiches and white wine spritzers, while the ladies go shopping and the men get manicures while talking about which of their favorites will replace Zelenskyy.
Posted originally on CTH on November 23, 2025 | Sundance
Sometimes it pays to remind what Marco Rubio said back in February, “Ukraine is a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia.” From that context the remarks from SSCI Vice-Chair, Senator Mark Warner, make sense.
Warner appears on ABC News ‘This Week’ to denounce the peace proposal now being negotiated in Geneva, Switzerland between Secretary Rubio and the Ukrainian delegation. Senator Warner makes it clear he will not accept the end to conflict in Ukraine. Video and Transcript Below:
[TRANSCRIPT] – Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chair Mark Warner joins me now.
Good to see you this morning, Senator.
SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA), INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE VICE CHAIR: Good morning, Martha.
RADDATZ: What is your reaction to this peace proposal that is on the table?
WARNER: My reaction is it’s awful. It would make Neville Chamberlain’s giving in to Hitler outside of World War II looks strong in comparison. The fact that this was almost a series of Russian talking points, would require Ukraine to give the — totality of the Donbas, parts they still control, cut back their military forces going forward, never be able to join NATO.
This would be a complete capitulation. And it’s why I think you’re hearing from Congress, both sides, people pushing back. And, obviously, the Europeans feel like they’ve been totally left high and dry.
MARTHA RADDATZ, ABC “THIS WEEK” CO-ANCHOR: You’ve heard the deadline from President Trump, but then him saying that’s not — there’s room for negotiation here, it seems like. So, what do you think happens after today (ph)?
WARNER: I think what happens — it feels like this was a plan that they took almost entirely from the Russians, did no consultation with Congress, no consultation with the Europeans, obviously didn’t read in Zelenskyy and the Ukrainians, and now they’re getting ferocious pushback. So, one more time, Trump is changing his deadline.
Of course, how he picked Thanksgiving to start with, I have no idea. But now it — even with this — some of this back and forth that it’s not really an American plan, or isn’t an American plan, this is the kind of chaos that, unfortunately, represents so much of the Trump foreign policy.
RADDATZ: So, what do you think President Zelenskyy should do? He’s been through this before. It’s kind of back and forth with this White House. They support you. They pull it back. Do you think all of this, this proposal, which seems to heavily favor Russia, is that just a starting point again?
WARNER: Well, I would hope — I would hope so. Again, the Ukrainians have performed magnificently in the field. And they are reinventing the nature of warfare in terms of use — use of drones. To have this proposal forced upon them, I think as Zelenskyy said, Ukrainian dignity versus giving up a partner, I would hope the president would not be so weak as to try to force this plan on the Ukrainian and our other allies. It would, I think, send not only a horrible signal for Europe, but the person who’s watching this probably the most closely is President Xi in China. And if the Americans are willing to throw in their towel so much like this on Ukraine, you can bet that Xi is thinking, this gives him a clearer path in terms of taking Taiwan.
RADDATZ: But what does Zelenskyy do here? If on Thursday the president says, I’m telling you right now, take what we’ve got on the table and — and there will probably be some changes, or we’re done. What — what does Zelenskyy do, just hope that Europe rises and helps him out?
WARNER: Well, let’s — let’s, again, you have overwhelming support still for Ukraine. The last Ukraine aid package had 80 percent of the Congress. I think the president is seeing this one-sided plan kind of blow up in his face with pushback from the Ukrainians, from the Europeans, from members of Congress of his own party. And my hope is, he’ll come back and be a bit more reasonable.
RADDATZ: I want to turn to Venezuela. We’re all watching that this week. What can you tell us about what you think happens now. We’ve got this massive buildup. We’ve got this massive show of force. We have airline who aren’t — that aren’t flying there because of all the activity and the military activity right now.
Do you expect something more to happen?
WARNER: Well, historically, the United States’ intervention in Central America or South America has not always rolled out the way we’d hope. Maduro was a bad guy, frankly, under Biden. When the Venezuelan people voted in overwhelming numbers, Biden should have put more pressure on getting Maduro out then. It was a mistake.
But now, to have this much armed forces, we have not been briefed on any military action that would have been authorized. He keeps putting the word out that maybe he has authorized, maybe he’s not. We are trying to get the answer on that. But there is a real question. You know, to take this big a fleet, bring our largest aircraft carrier, put them there to further blow up boats that they claim have drugs on them, frankly they could have interdicted some of those boats and shown the world that there were drugs.
In terms of Venezuela, the legal opinion about the drug run — drug running doesn’t touch Venezuela at all. So, the president would have to come back and brief us.
RADDATZ: Trump says he’ll be speaking with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Do you think that is a good idea? And what can you say to him?
WARNER: Because I think the notion that Trump says he’ll talk to anyone, I think that is — I’m not going to critique him on that, if there’s a way to push Maduro out. Remember, our government and fifty other governments, almost all of Western Europe, don’t recognize the Maduro government as legitimate. But it does not feel like there is an organized plan. And coming down again, America only, without any of our other allies in South America or Central America again seems not the right approach to me.
RADDATZ: What could happen short of a show of force? When you have that massive a show of force, it’s almost like, you’re in a position where you have to do something or you might look weak. Short of Maduro saying, OK, I’ll leave, then what does he do?
WARNER: Well, again, that’s the million-dollar question. And as you know, when you’ve got this many forces down there, and you can’t keep the carrier positioned there forever, you also have the chance of an accident happening or a conflict between the Venezuelan air force or some of our planes that might —
RADDATZ: Do you think he wants to go to war with Venezuela? Do you think he wants (INAUDIBLE) —
WARNER: I don’t know. I don’t know. I think he is trying to put outside pressure on Maduro. But by doing it in this kind of America only approach, again without giving any sign to, I think, even his — the Republicans on The Hill what his plans are, I’m not sure is the right way to do foreign policy. You couple this Venezuela misadventure with this desertion of Ukraine and this is not making America safer, and it’s sure not putting America first.
RADDATZ: Thanks very much for joining us, Senator. Always appreciate it.
Posted originally on CTH on November 21, 2025 | Sundance
President Trump confirmed on Fox News (during an interview with Brian Kilmeade) he gave Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy a week to review the 28-point peace proposal organized by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff.
Ukraine will likely never agree to the proposal, because too many European and American interests are grounded in maintaining conflict between Russia and Ukraine. However, the shift this time is that if Ukraine/EU/NATO and Congress do not agree to the ceasefire and peace proposal, President Trump has indicated he will withdraw all support.
Zelenskyy – “President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy held a joint phone call with President of France Emmanuel Macron, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Keir Starmer, and Federal Chancellor of Germany Friedrich Merz.
The Head of State thanked them for their principled support for Ukraine and for all our people.
The parties discussed the plan for peace for Ukraine and all of Europe. The leaders value the efforts of the United States, President Trump, and his team aimed at ending this war, and are working on the document prepared by the American side. This must be a plan that ensures a real and dignified peace.
The leaders are coordinating closely to make sure that the principled stances are taken into account. Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer, and Friedrich Merz coordinated the next steps and agreed that the teams will work together at the corresponding levels.” (link)
1. Ukraine’s sovereignty will be confirmed.
2. A comprehensive non-aggression agreement will be concluded between Russia, Ukraine and Europe. All ambiguities of the last 30 years will be considered settled.
3. It is expected that Russia will not invade neighboring countries, and NATO will not expand further.
4. A dialogue will be held between Russia and NATO, mediated by the United States, to resolve all security issues and create conditions for de-escalation in order to ensure global security and increase opportunities for cooperation and future economic development.
5. Ukraine will receive reliable security guarantees.
6. The size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces will be limited to 600,000 personnel.
7. Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO agrees to include in its statutes a provision that Ukraine will not be admitted in the future.
8. NATO agrees not to station troops in Ukraine.
9. European fighter jets will be stationed in Poland.
10. The U.S. guarantee:
•The U.S. will receive compensation for the guarantee; •If Ukraine invades Russia, it will lose the guarantee; •If Russia invades Ukraine, in addition to a decisive coordinated military response, all global sanctions will be reinstated, recognition of the new territory and all other benefits of this deal will be revoked; •If Ukraine launches a missile at Moscow or St. Petersburg without cause, the security guarantee will be deemed invalid.
11. Ukraine is eligible for EU membership and will receive short-term preferential access to the European market while this issue is being considered.
12. A powerful global package of measures to rebuild Ukraine, including but not limited to:
•The creation of a Ukraine Development Fund to invest in fast-growing industries, including technology, data centers, and artificial intelligence. •The United States will cooperate with Ukraine to jointly rebuild, develop, modernize, and operate Ukraine’s gas infrastructure, including pipelines and storage facilities. •Joint efforts to rehabilitate war-affected areas for the restoration, reconstruction and modernization of cities and residential areas. •Infrastructure development. •Extraction of minerals and natural resources. •The World Bank will develop a special financing package to accelerate these efforts.
13. Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy:
•The lifting of sanctions will be discussed and agreed upon in stages and on a case-by-case basis. •The United States will enter into a long-term economic cooperation agreement for mutual development in the areas of energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data centers, rare earth metal extraction projects in the Arctic, and other mutually beneficial corporate opportunities. •Russia will be invited to rejoin the G8.
14. Frozen funds will be used as follows:
•$100 billion in frozen Russian assets will be invested in US-led efforts to rebuild and invest in Ukraine; •The US will receive 50% of the profits from this venture. Europe will add $100 billion to increase the amount of investment available for Ukraine’s reconstruction. Frozen European funds will be unfrozen. The remainder of the frozen Russian funds will be invested in a separate US-Russian investment vehicle that will implement joint projects in specific areas. This fund will be aimed at strengthening relations and increasing common interests to create a strong incentive not to return to conflict.
15. A joint American-Russian working group on security issues will be established to promote and ensure compliance with all provisions of this agreement.
16. Russia will enshrine in law its policy of non-aggression towards Europe and Ukraine.
18. Ukraine agrees to be a non-nuclear state in accordance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
19. The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant will be launched under the supervision of the IAEA, and the electricity produced will be distributed equally between Russia and Ukraine — 50:50.
20. Both countries undertake to implement educational programs in schools and society aimed at promoting understanding and tolerance of different cultures and eliminating racism and prejudice:
•Ukraine will adopt EU rules on religious tolerance and the protection of linguistic minorities. •Both countries will agree to abolish all discriminatory measures and guarantee the rights of Ukrainian and Russian media and education. (Note: Similar ideas were incorporated into Trump’s 2020 Israel-Palestine peace plan). •All Nazi ideology and activities must be rejected and prohibited.
21. Territories:
•Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk will be recognized as de facto Russian, including by the United States. •Kherson and Zaporizhzhia will be frozen along the line of contact, which will mean de facto recognition along the line of contact. •Russia will relinquish other agreed territories it controls outside the five regions. •Ukrainian forces will withdraw from the part of Donetsk Oblast that they currently control, and this withdrawal zone will be considered a neutral demilitarized buffer zone, internationally recognized as territory belonging to the Russian Federation. Russian forces will not enter this demilitarized zone
22. After agreeing on future territorial arrangements, both the Russian Federation and Ukraine undertake not to change these arrangements by force. Any security guarantees will not apply in the event of a breach of this commitment.
23. Russia will not prevent Ukraine from using the Dnieper River for commercial activities, and agreements will be reached on the free transport of grain across the Black Sea.
24. A humanitarian committee will be established to resolve outstanding issues:
•All remaining prisoners and bodies will be exchanged on an ‘all for all’ basis. •All civilian detainees and hostages will be returned, including children. •A family reunification program will be implemented. •Measures will be taken to alleviate the suffering of the victims of the conflict.
25. Ukraine will hold elections in 100 days.
26. All parties involved in this conflict will receive full amnesty for their actions during the war and agree not to make any claims or consider any complaints in the future.
27. This agreement will be legally binding. Its implementation will be monitored and guaranteed by the Peace Council, headed by President Donald J. Trump. Sanctions will be imposed for violations
28. Once all parties agree to this memorandum, the ceasefire will take effect immediately after both sides retreat to agreed points to begin implementation of the agreement.
VIA POLITICO – ““Now the pressure on Ukraine is one of the most difficult. Now Ukraine may find itself facing a very difficult choice. Either loss of dignity, or the risk of losing a key partner,” Zelenskyy said, in reference to the U.S., where Trump has long been skeptical of fully backing Kyiv’s war effort.
“They will expect an answer from us,” Zelenskyy said about the peace proposal. “Although in fact I have already given it,” he added, citing the oath he took when he entered office in 2019 to defend Ukraine’s sovereignty.” (LINK)
Posted originally on CTH on November 19, 2025 | Sundance
When Europe goes to war with Russia, they will not require the military to fill out customs declarations as they cross borders within the EU.
Tanks, missiles, artillery and most combat weapons could be exempt from EU customs declarations if the plan by Brussels moves forward.
Additionally, under the proposal most drivers of military equipment may even be permitted to exceed the limits on driving times and rest periods, should the fight against Russia require extended physical effort.
The newly proposed objective is to empower European soldiers to make independent decisions without having to fill out the customary paperwork, requiring prior approval from the European Commission before affixing their bayonets. The EU wants to work out the details before they begin military operations against the Russian Federation.
EUROPE – […] The communication notes that some countries require 45 days of advance notice before allowing military equipment to cross their territory. “Significant barriers to effective military mobility in the EU persist,” the communication notes. “National rules are often divergent, fragmented and non-harmonised.”
[…] “We need to move fast. We need to move faster than what Europe is used to or is expecting to,” Tzitzikostas said, saying the target is to get the basics in place by 2030.
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius warned over the weekend that Russia may be capable of launching an attack on a NATO member state as early as 2028-2029.
If approved, EMERS would also grant derogations from standard customs and transport rules, including limits on driving times and rest periods for civilian operators, as well as faster, dedicated customs procedures under a specific EU protocol.
[…] To ensure coordination on the ground, each member state will appoint a national coordinator for military transport, serving as a single contact point for permissions, notifications and crisis response. (read more)
I would not be too concerned about the capabilities of Europe to confront Russian troops. It appears there are now multiple discussions within the EU proposing to stop tracking carbon footprints for soldiers during those times of the day when maximum energy expenditure would be needed.
The French and German military leadership are against lifting the climate rules; however, the pressure from the U.S. within NATO appears to be shifting the overall sentiment.
While negotiations are still underway about permitting the burning of fossil fuels for meal preparation in the field, thankfully there are military consultants beginning to convince Brussels leadership that soldiers making coffee in forward operating positions should be permitted regardless of emissions. FULL STORY HERE
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
Subscribe to alerts for each new postEmail *
Centinel2012 