Tag Archives: NATO

Jan 9 2026

President Trump Withdraws the U.S. From the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and 65 Other Globalist Institutions/Mechanisms


Posted originally on CTH on January 8, 2026 | Sundance 

This is factually a much bigger deal, a bigger win, than most will initially appreciate.

As many deep political followers well understand, the 66 organizations that President Trump has just withdrawn from represent a large network of sanctioned government organizations that structurally support the globalist agenda.

President Trump has issued an executive order [SEE HERE] “Withdrawing the United States from International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties that Are Contrary to the Interests of the United States.” These institutions, including the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, are mechanisms that exist to underpin globalist objectives.

Each of the institutions carry “membership fees” or financial obligations each participating government pays into. Each organization consists of board members, stakeholders and other administrative offices which employ the friends and families of current and former politicians, world “leaders” and essentially well-connected and disconnected elites who run the agencies. It’s like a massive network of NGOs, except the entities exist exclusively with government funding.

Just like the United Nations itself, the USA always pays the dues, fees and largest portion of the operating expenses, which includes payrolls and travel benefits. Other countries participate, but it is the USA who picks up the largest portion of the financial obligations for the organization itself to exist.

Like USAID, the designated “global” organizations (conventions, treaties, etc) operate as massive bureaucratic rule makers for global standards and practices. The organizations themselves employ a network of downstream entities, agencies, contractors, think-tanks, academic liaisons and internal government offices who collaborate with the goals and objectives of the parent organization.

Inside each of these agencies and institutions you find the friends and families of the power brokers who run global -mainly western- systems of government. Withdrawing the support of the U.S. means cutting that entire apparatus off from receiving funding from the USA. Europe and the USA are the largest funders of each of these World Economic Forum aligned agencies.

It is not coincidental that President Trump and Secretary Rubio are making this move in advance of President Trump traveling to Davos, where the network associations congregate. President Trump is expected to deliver a bucket of ice water upon the heads of those who attend Davos annually.

The GREAT RESET crew, who design the global government customs and norms, is being reset.

This move is massive in relation to their financial dependency on the United States participating in the various schemes.

This is a big deal, and President Trump has put Secretary of State Marco Rubio in charge of dismantling it.

[President Donald J Trump] – By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct:

Section 1. Purpose. (a) On February 4, 2025, I issued Executive Order 14199 (Withdrawing the United States from and Ending Funding to Certain United Nations Organizations and Reviewing United States Support to All International Organizations). That Executive Order directed the Secretary of State, in consultation with the United States Representative to the United Nations, to conduct a review of all international intergovernmental organizations of which the United States is a member and provides any type of funding or other support, and all conventions and treaties to which the United States is a party, to determine which organizations, conventions, and treaties are contrary to the interests of the United States. The Secretary of State has reported his findings as required by Executive Order 14199.

(b) I have considered the Secretary of State’s report and, after deliberating with my Cabinet, have determined that it is contrary to the interests of the United States to remain a member of, participate in, or otherwise provide support to the organizations listed in section 2 of this memorandum.

(c) Consistent with Executive Order 14199 and pursuant to the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct all executive departments and agencies (agencies) to take immediate steps to effectuate the withdrawal of the United States from the organizations listed in section 2 of this memorandum as soon as possible. For United Nations entities, withdrawal means ceasing participation in or funding to those entities to the extent permitted by law.

(d) My review of further findings of the Secretary of State remains ongoing.

Sec. 2. Organizations from Which the United States Shall Withdraw. (a) Non-United Nations Organizations:

(i) 24/7 Carbon-Free Energy Compact;

(ii) Colombo Plan Council;

(iii) Commission for Environmental Cooperation;

(iv) Education Cannot Wait;

(v) European Centre of Excellence for Countering

Hybrid Threats;

(vi) Forum of European National Highway Research Laboratories;

(vii) Freedom Online Coalition;

(viii) Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund;

(ix) Global Counterterrorism Forum;

(x) Global Forum on Cyber Expertise;

(xi) Global Forum on Migration and Development;

(xii) Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research;

(xiii) Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals, and Sustainable Development;

(xiv) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;

(xv) Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services;

(xvi) International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property;

(xvii) International Cotton Advisory Committee;

(xviii) International Development Law Organization;

(xix) International Energy Forum;

(xx) International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies;

(xxi) International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance;

(xxii) International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law;

(xxiii) International Lead and Zinc Study Group;

(xxiv) International Renewable Energy Agency;

(xxv) International Solar Alliance;

(xxvi) International Tropical Timber Organization;

(xxvii) International Union for Conservation of Nature;

(xxviii) Pan American Institute of Geography and History;

(xxix) Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation;

(xxx) Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combatting Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia;

(xxxi) Regional Cooperation Council;

(xxxii) Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century;

(xxxiii) Science and Technology Center in Ukraine;

(xxxiv) Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme; and

(xxxv) Venice Commission of the Council of Europe.

(b) United Nations (UN) Organizations:

(i) Department of Economic and Social Affairs;

(ii) UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) — Economic Commission for Africa;

(iii) ECOSOC — Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean;

(iv) ECOSOC — Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific;

(v) ECOSOC — Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia;

(vi) International Law Commission;

(vii) International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals;

(viii) International Trade Centre;

(ix) Office of the Special Adviser on Africa;

(x) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary General for Children in Armed Conflict;

(xi) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict;

(xii) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children;

(xiii) Peacebuilding Commission;

(xiv) Peacebuilding Fund;

(xv) Permanent Forum on People of African Descent;

(xvi) UN Alliance of Civilizations;

(xvii) UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries;

(xviii) UN Conference on Trade and Development;

(xix) UN Democracy Fund;

(xx) UN Energy;

(xxi) UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women;

(xxii) UN Framework Convention on Climate Change;

(xxiii) UN Human Settlements Programme;

(xxiv) UN Institute for Training and Research;

(xxv) UN Oceans;

(xxvi) UN Population Fund;

(xxvii) UN Register of Conventional Arms;

(xxviii) UN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination;

(xxix) UN System Staff College;

(xxx) UN Water; and

(xxxi) UN University.

Sec. 3. Implementation Guidance. The Secretary of State shall provide additional guidance as needed to agencies when implementing this memorandum.

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d) The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

DONALD J. Trump [LINK]

• This is essentially deconstructing the George H.W. Bush “New World Order” as established over decades by governing elites, financial institutions & western governments.  • This is removing a massive network of agencies and operations, and the Bush-era 1992 U.N Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) is still only one part of it.

• This is tectonic geopolitical plate shifting with ramifications that are beyond most persons understanding.

Each of these global regulatory processes, policies and constructs, then creates an office within the U.S. government for regulatory enforcement and compliance.

Each treaty, convention and organization creates a bureaucracy within the U.S. govt to comply with it. That bureaucracy then expands govt spending far beyond the initial costs. (i.e. annual membership fees, association fees, and internal agreement payments for each participating govt).

We pay to join the agreement, we agree to the terms of the agreement, then we have to pay to organize our own offices to align with the agreement we just joined.

It gets worse….

Each agency within govt then has to create a subsidiary office for their specific compliance with the larger network. So, you have a DC govt compliance system, and an agency compliance system that is topic specific to that particular agency.

The 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change as an example, means every single agency from HHS to DOD to FEMA to DHS to the entire apparatus of govt, all of them, need to have a corresponding office to create agency specific rules that comply with the originating charter.

You see, it’s not just the Federal Govt paying the U.N a membership fee for the Framework Convention on Climate Change, but each agency within govt then has to pay an office staff filled with lawyers, compliance officers, and bureaucratic nonsense teams that carry out the charter of the agreement we just signed up to.

Each of the 66 outlined “agreements” can end up generating hundreds or thousands of federal employees that are tasked with U.S. administration of the agreement.

Each of those federal employees has an expense account, credit card, vehicle, or voucher method, some form of indulgency, that connects them to the larger spending graft.

What Trump has done is a much bigger detonation than most will initially contemplate.

Thousands of well-connected DC employees, wives of politicians, brothers, sisters, in-laws, friends and family members, will now lose their income streams.

♦ This is also happening as President Trump has presented the 2026 National Security Strategy.  A stunning 33-page outline reprioritizing all of the interests and objectives of the United States government.

On December 6, 2025, President Trump put the world on notice that sovereign U.S. interests would be baseline for all of our strategic foreign policy approaches; particularly Europe was put on notice.

On January 7, 2026, President Trump is putting the world on notice that all of these various self-restricting global systems, institutions and mechanisms will no longer be supported by the United States.  Thousands of downstream beneficiaries that exist -in majority- from U.S. participation and underwriting, are going to be scrambling trying to find a way to retain their status.

President Trump’s upcoming speech to the World Economic Forum should be epic.

WASHINGTON, Jan 7 (Reuters) – U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Energy Secretary Chris Wright will join President Donald Trump at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, a source familiar with the plans said on Wednesday.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff will also be part of the planned delegation, the source said.

Trump will attend this year’s annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in person, after addressing the gathering by video link last year, four days after returning to the White House for a second term.

This year’s meeting is scheduled for January 19-23. {source}

Jan 8 2026

Lots of Words – United States Supports but Does Not Sign “Coalition of Willing” Security Guarantees


Posted originally on CTH on January 7, 2026 | Sundance

I’ll post the video outcomes of the Paris summit comments below. However, in the interests of time and cutting to the chase, the picture below highlights the reality of things as they present.

The British-based “coalition of the willing” (+1 USA) assembled in Paris as the operation to manipulate the U.S. into forming the cornerstone of the Ukraine “security guarantees” continues. A great deal of this is public relations and psychological operations intended to create something against President Trump’s expressed intention.

However, everything you need to know about the eventual end of this long exposition is evident in the image that everyone pretends not to see.

German Chancellor Merz, Ukraine President Zelenskyy, French President Macron, British Prime Minister Starmer and then you have Mr Witkoff & Mr Kushner. What’s missing? Trump. There’s your answer!

There’s no President Trump because the intent of the principals is against our America-first interest. Hence, the USA did not sign up to the EU created security guarantees, because Trump is demanding they do their own work.

Key word “proposed” [read agreement] …”These elements will be European-led, with the involvement also of non-European members of the Coalition, and the proposed support of the US.”…

President Trump is presenting: The U.S. will provide intelligence *monitoring* assistance, but that’s it.

Not in our strategic interest. Not our war. Not our issue.

The U.S. delegation did not sign up to the statement the EU put forth after the meeting.

Lots of words were said.

Lots of gratitude was expressed.

Lots of support was mentioned. However, ultimately the responsibility for any agreed security guarantees will be carried by Europe, not by the United States.

As noted by Politico-EU: […] The statement from Kyiv’s European allies says they stand ready to commit to “legally binding” security guarantees to support Ukraine in the event of a peace deal with Russia.

Crucially, the monitoring and verification of a future ceasefire would be led by the U.S., with contributions from countries including the U.K. and Germany.

The plan also sets out security guarantees that would include long-term support for the Ukrainian armed forces, the deployment of a European-led multinational force in Ukraine in case of a peace settlement, and “binding” commitments to support Ukraine should there be a future Russian attack.

French President Macron continues misleading the media, changing the intention of President Trump:

“The coalition of the willing declaration for a solid and lasting peace … for the first time recognizes an operational convergence between the 35 countries, Ukraine and the U.S. to build robust security guarantees,” Macron told reporters. Washington will participate in those guarantees, including with the “backstop” that Europeans wanted, he added.

It’s professional parseltongue from Macron, a man well-versed in the art of linguistic manipulation.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that after a ceasefire, the U.K. and France will set up military hubs across Ukraine and “build protected facilities for weapons and military equipment to support Ukraine’s defense needs.”

France, the U.K. and Ukraine signed a separate declaration on Tuesday laying out these commitments.

The European-led multinational force will cover land, air and sea and will be stationed in Western Ukraine, far from the contact line, Macron said. France and the U.K. have previously said they would be willing to put boots on the ground — but most other coalition members, including Germany, have so far shied away from joining that commitment.

Other nations have suggested deploying aircraft based in neighboring NATO countries to monitor Ukrainian skies, and Turkey has agreed to lead the coalition’s maritime segment to secure the Black Sea.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Berlin was open to deploying its troops in a neighboring NATO country that would act in case of Russian aggression, telling reporters “we are not ruling anything out.” But he stressed that the final decision would be up to Germany’s parliament.

“I will only make proposals to the Bundestag once there is a ceasefire and the coalition of the willing has agreed on the procedure to be followed,” he told reporters. “The prerequisite is a ceasefire.”

Some European countries, however, remain reluctant to deploy military assets in a post-war Ukraine. Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis repeated that Greece will not participate in a European military force in Ukraine. However, Greek government officials said Mitsotakis has not ruled out other forms of assistance, such as in maritime surveillance. (more)

[The EU Readout HERE]

Witkoff and Kushner continued the Trump approach to heap praise upon the coalition, affirm their best intentions and openly, publicly advocate for the support therein. However, this is a European issue, supported by the U.S, but not operationally engaged with U.S. military despite the EU/Ukraine demands and continued requests.

The U.S. will monitor the Ukraine ceasefire situation and act as a diplomatic peacekeeper, establishing deconfliction channels of open communication between the USA and Russia.  However, Europe, this so-called “coalition of the willing,” will be responsible for any military backstop within that approach.

Prime Minister Starmer is all-in to put his British troops on the ground. France less so, with Macron hedging. Germany even less so with Chancellor Merz saying his parliament needs to approve of troop movements.

Everyone is hedging, unsure, seemingly tenuous because they have never operated without the USA acting as the heavy enforcement mechanism.  President Trump is coaching them to take responsibility for their own region.  The ‘coalition of the willing’ is doing their typically European thing, shouting strong words at Vladimir Putin – but checking to make sure the biggest playground enforcer is standing behind them.

♦ My message to those who worry about President Trump committing us to something protracted that will eventually end in our being pulled into a European theater of conflict, quit worrying.  Trump is telling the EU to quit talking and start actively being responsible for their own security.  In the background Trump has bigger plans.

Hans Mahncke has a solid take on the bigger picture:

The notion that America wants Greenland for its raw materials is either insanely ignorant or just engagement bait. Extracting anything in the Arctic is prohibitively expensive, and often physically impossible, with extreme cold, thick ice, equipment that won’t function, and no roads, rail or ports to move anything once you have it.

The real reason America needs Greenland is its immense geostrategic military value, which should be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain, especially anyone who has ever looked at a map from above, with the North Pole at the center.

Sure, some tasks could be outsourced to NATO, but that alliance is on its last legs, burdened by too many countries with conflicting priorities, and has mainly served as a way for Europe to freeload on US security guarantees. Relying on it for American national security is reckless. It’s far smarter to cut out the endless middlemen and take direct control. (source)

Mahncke is correct. On one side of the ice, you have North America. On the other side of the ice you have, well, the reason for President Trump to order dozens of icebreakers.

October, 2025: Finland is slightly smaller than Montana and wedged between Sweden and Russia. Finland, a nation of approximately 5 million people, has a security outlook shaped by its geography, a strategic position within the new NATO/Arctic strategy.

President Trump holds a bilateral discussion with Finnish President Alexander Stubb, as the two leaders’ complete terms for eleven icebreaker ships valued at $6.1 billion. Under terms of the deal, three of the ships will be built by Davie in Galveston, Texas, and four by Bollinger Shipyards in Houma, Louisiana.

Finland is the world leader in icebreaker ship building and will help teach U.S. ship building companies the latest advances in the technology. [SOURCE]

Stay Elevated:

December, 2025: Appearing on Fox News to discuss the Ukraine v Russia conflict, Finland President Alexander Stubb is questioned about the conflicting U.S. intelligence reports pushed by Reuters saying Russia will invade Europe, versus DNI Tulsi Gabbard saying Russia has no capability or intent to invade Europe.

President Stubb notes his agencies work closely with U.S. intelligence and in his view, Tulsi Gabbard is correct regarding President Vladimir Putin’s intention. [SOURCE]

President Trump is dancing through a geopolitical minefield, deconstructing numerous long-standing economic and manipulative institutions along the way, while simultaneously keeping 100 domestic agenda plates spinning on sticks.

It is amazing to watch his navigation skills.

Do not join the opposition effort to divide.  Instead, smile and enjoy this.

Be thankful that God has allowed you to see what is unfolding. Others that remain asleep are not as lucky as you.

Ask yourself in prayer, why you. Why now? Then, think about this daily in your quiet time.

Affirm your spirit and allow this sense of fortunate knowledge to elevate your faith and confidence in a loving and purposeful God. You have the unique gift of discernment. Ultimately, you have been chosen.

Be thankful. Remember, Romans 13:12

Live a positive, affirming, purposeful and incredible life.

Within every battle, challenge and contest we encounter, always remember to be thankful and continue living your best life.

[Support Our Ongoing Mission Here]

Jan 7 2026

Zelenskyy Announces the Appointment of Former Canadian Deputy Prime Minister, Chrystia Freeland as Economic Advisor


Posted originally on CTH on January 6, 2026 | Sundance

There is some good news within this announcement as Justin Trudeau’s former Deputy Prime Minister to Canada is well known to both President Donald Trump and North American political followers for a decade.

Chrystia Freeland was the former lead of the Canadian trade delegation when Trudeau realized he needed to try and offset the economic damage within the renegotiated NAFTA agreement known as the USMCA. Freeland was also the lead attack agent behind the debanking effort against Canadian truckers who opposed the vaccine mandate.

In addition to holding Ukraine roots, the ideology of Chrystia Freeland as a multinational globalist and promoter for the World Economic Forum’s ‘new world order’ is well documented.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY – “Today, I appointed Chrystia Freeland as an Advisor on Economic Development. Chrystia is highly skilled in these matters and has extensive experience in attracting investment and implementing economic transformations. Right now, Ukraine needs to strengthen its internal resilience – both for the sake of Ukraine’s recovery if diplomacy delivers results as swiftly as possible, and to reinforce our defense if, because of delays by our partners, it takes longer to bring this war to an end. I am grateful to everyone who is ready to support our state and our engagement with partners. Glory to Ukraine!” 

Presumably this appointment is intended to assist Zelenskyy in gaining western banking investment in Ukraine, part of the 20-point plan that relates to economic recovery. However, the downside is this announcement undermines any motivation the Trump administration might have toward that same objective.

In reality, given the recent revelations about billions of laundered aid funds being skimmed by corrupt members of the Ukraine government, we can only imagine how much of the recovery funds would be apportioned to maintaining the life of indulgence the political leaders expect.

In response to the lucrative “voluntary” appointment, Chrystia Freeland has announced her resignation from Canadian government in order to avoid any conflict of interest as the skimming is organized.

Approved by British intelligence, MI6, and the greater British Commonwealth in accordance with the needs of the World Economic Forum and banking control managers, it is likely that Freeland will join a growing list of Ukraine Economic “Advisors.”

As Zelenskyy recently said about the opportunity for the EU to confiscate the Russian sovereign wealth fund, “just give me the money.”

Today, around 27 leaders, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte as well as the alliance’s top military officer, Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, will gather in Paris amid so-called Coalition of the Willing format.  The objective will be to solidify the U.S. elements to provide the “security guarantees,” while Brussels organizes the financial structures that will be possible only because the USA will stand guard over their investment.

…. And, so it goes.

PARIS — U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner — U.S. President Donald Trump’s son-in-law — will travel to Paris and attend a meeting of Ukraine’s allies on Tuesday, an Elysée official told reporters on Monday.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio will not be there “for obvious reasons,” the official added, referring to the situation in Venezuela.

“We have strived to bring the Americans closer to us, never resigning ourselves to the U.S. abandoning Ukraine. We have succeeded in this exercise of reconvergence between Ukraine, Europe, and America,” the official stressed. (read more)

Who knows, maybe we get Greenland in exchange for providing Ukraine security.

Jan 6 2026

Sean Hannity Interviews Venezuelan Opposition Leader Maria Corina Machado


Posted originally on CTH on January 6, 2026 | Sundance 

President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have noted that following the ouster of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, the remaining government is being pressured to realign their positions and accept a change in direction. It is always tenuous when the leader of a hostile foreign government is removed.

The current approach by the Trump administration is to permit former Vice-President Delcy Rodríguez to continue operating the mechanisms within the country to retain near-term stability. The CIA assessed Delcy Rodriquez was the interim ruler who could keep order.

Prior to the removal of Maduro, Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, was asked by the Trump administration to provide a detailed summary of how she could form a functioning government, should she be assisted to power.

Machado’s response did not provide confidence that her strategy was comprehensive enough. Therefore, the Trump administration assessed the best interim approach would be to continue working with the remaining Maduro government officials, led by Delcy Rodriquez, while pressuring them to follow the instructions of the United States.

Various geopolitical powers, including many that attend Mar-a-Lago functions, want Maria Corina Machado installed quickly. President Trump and Secretary Rubio are being more measured in their approach. The powers that want Machado installed are now working on a media strategy. Sean Hannity is enlisted for the assist.

The issue is one of competency and chaos.  President Trump and Secretary Rubio do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past (Bush/Powell, Iraq or Obama/Clinton, Libya).  The Venezuela issue is entirely different from the Middle East, but the same type of chaos can reemerge if the transition from authoritarianism to representative democracy is not well managed.

The Sea Island attendees support a quick Machado installation.  Trump/Rubio prefer to proceed with more caution, especially because someone is going to be on the hook for financial support to Venezuela, because the domestic rewards from any expanded oil revenue are at least 5 to 10 years away.

Changing the regime in Venezuela may break China’s ‘belt and road’ grip, but China’s money is going to need to be replaced with independent domestic economic wealth for the Venezuelan people.  That process takes time.

Maria Corina Machado is supported by all the same networks who support Volodymyr Zelenskyy.  Despite the twinkles in the eyes of senators within the Foreign Relations Committee, we don’t want Venezuela to become North America’s largest Somali daycare operation.

(WSJ) – […] Latin America analysts have previously cautioned, including during Trump’s first term, that Maduro’s ouster without a capable replacement would likely empower armed military factions, rival politicians and criminal groups within Venezuela as they fought for control, leading to a security crisis in the country.

[…] analysis by the Central Intelligence Agency was briefed to President Trump and shared with a small circle of senior administration officials, according to two of the people. It was a factor in Trump’s decision to back Maduro’s vice president instead of opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado, some of the people said.

The assessment provides insight into Trump’s decision not to support the opposition’s bid for control of Venezuela following the brazen U.S. military operation to capture Maduro last week and bring him to the U.S. for trial. As in his first term, Trump was convinced that near-term stability in Venezuela could be maintained only if Maduro’s replacement had the support of the country’s armed forces and other elites.

Senior Trump administration officials commissioned the CIA to undertake the analytical assessment and debated it during discussions about day-after plans for Venezuela, the people said. The people familiar with the assessment said they were unsure of the precise date it was produced.

The report was briefed to Trump in recent weeks, according to two of the people.

The assessment didn’t describe how Maduro could lose power, or advocate for removing him, but attempted to gauge the domestic situation in Venezuela in the event that he did, people familiar with it said.

The intelligence report, the people said, cited Rodríguez and two other top Venezuelan regime figures as possible interim rulers who could keep order. The people familiar with the assessment didn’t identify the other two officials, but besides Rodríguez, the two most influential power brokers are Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello and Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino.

The two hard-liners, who command Venezuela’s police and military, could undo any efforts at a transition, according to former U.S. and Venezuelan officials. Both face U.S. criminal charges similar to those filed against Maduro and are unlikely to cooperate with Washington.

The report concluded that Edmundo González, widely seen as the actual winner of the 2024 election against Maduro, and Machado would struggle to gain legitimacy as leaders while facing resistance from pro-regime security services, drug-trafficking networks and political opponents. (more)

Jan 2 2026

Anonymous U.S. Officials Say Ukraine Didn’t Target Putin with Drone Attack – Russian Officials Say They Have Drone Flight Plan From Navigation Unit


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.

[MORE CONTEXT IN VIDEO]

Dec 31 2025

Zelenskyy Outlines His 20-Point Terms During Fox News Interview


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:

.

Dec 30 2025

President Trump Responds to the 91-Drone Attack on Putin’s Residence in Novgorod region


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)

I suspect the British did it.

Dec 30 2025

Memos of Conversations Between George W. Bush and President Vladimir Putin Are Released


BUMPED Due to Importance:

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.

Dec 29 2025

Recap Video of Zelenskyy Sunday at Mar-a-Lago


Posted originally on CTH on December 28, 2025 | Sundance 

President Donald Trump is ducking and weaving through the minefield of geopolitical politics, managing a proxy war he did not create that was organized by a corrupt U.S. State Dept./CIA and globalist agenda.

Trump wants the war to end; he wants the U.S. out of it; he wants peace with a fundamental reset of the entire European dynamic, and he wants a strategic relationship with the Russian Federation.  However, every element in the proverbial ‘West’ wants exactly the opposite.

Washington DC – the majorities in both parties, most of the European Union and the ‘Western’ military industrial complex stand in opposition to President Trump’s objective.  The value of the dollar rests on his ability to navigate this complex geopolitical dynamic.  The ‘stakeholders’ are against him.  Trump has few allies. This is the challenge.

Do not diminish the scale of the challenge without consideration for the scale of opposition.  Russian President Vladimir Putin knows exactly what President Trump is up against; we would be wise to watch with similar patience.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been convinced by European leaders, NATO and the Intelligence Community that he has the upper hand. President Trump has only his wits, a strategic perspective and us.

Let Trump be Trump. He’ll figure it out.

Dec 29 2025

President Trump and President Zelenskyy Deliver Remarks Following Bilateral Discussions


Posted originally on CTH on December 28, 2025 | Sundance

President Trump stated earlier today he held a 2-hour phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin as ongoing discussions with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy continue.

President Trump suggested a few more weeks would be needed to iron out the remaining, critical sticking points. When asked if he and Zelenskyy had agreed on what would happen in the Donbas region, President Trump said the “word ‘agreed’ is too strong.” “I would say not ‘agreed’ but we’re getting closer to an agreement on that,” Trump said.

“Some of that land is maybe up for grabs, but it may be taken over the next period of a number of months,” Trump said. “And you’re better off making a deal now.” WATCH:

.