Tag Archives: Russia

Dec 8 2025

Trump Preparing to Exit NATO?


Posted originally on Dec 8, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |  

2025_National_Security_Strategy

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.

NATO Headquarters Brussels

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If we look at history and precedent, presidents of both parties have withdrawn from treaties without prior congressional approval, including: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.

Scepter of Power

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.

NATO Article 5

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.

Hollen Chris

“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 Timothy

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.”

europe Capital Flows New to Old

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.

Kennedy_Nixon_Debat_(1960)

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.”

US Russia Reestablishing Peace

Russia Peace Deal-7-Fa

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.
2024_10_30_16_56_43_NATO_Considers_Opening_a_Tokyo_Office_to_Have_a_Permanent_Indo_Pacific_Footprint

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.

Armstrong on Peace

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.

IBEUUS M Array 12 6 25
AE Equity War Index M Array 12 7 25

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.

Categories:European UnionWar

Blog Alerts

Envelop Subscribe to alerts for each new postEmail *

Related posts
SSCentAm-Gold Bar Black

Italy Declares Central Bank Held Gold an Asset of the People

December 8, 2025

PRIVATE BLOG

PRIVATE BLOG – EU To Stage False Flag to Start WWIII

December 6, 2025

Civil Unrest BW

Bulgaria Withdraws Budget After Protests

December 4, 2025

Putin signs

Putin Ignores Maduro’s Request for Help

December 3, 2025

Capital Controls (2)

Europe’s Love Affair with Capital Controls

December 2, 2025

 

Market Talk

 

Models

 

Events

 

Socrates

Dec 7 2025

President Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy – Europe Is Destroying Itself


Posted originally on CTH on December 6, 2025 | Sundance

President Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy is outlined in a detailed 33-page report.

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.

[Full pdf Here]

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.

Dec 6 2025

The Money Phase – Emissary Witkoff Updates on Ukraine/Russia Peace Negotiations


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.

Dec 5 2025

Canadian Media Catch On, U.S Trade Rep Jamieson Greer Says Trump Likely to Exit the USMCA (CUSMA)


Posted originally on CTH on December 5, 2025 | Sundance

In the world of Trumpian geopolitical trade stuff, three issues are very interesting to watch. (1) The strategic reset with Russia which could break the official western construct of financial control. (2) The proactive and defensive positioning of Mexico (desperate attempt to retain economic attachment), and (3) the certain dissolution of the USMCA what Canadians call CUSMA.

Canadian media are starting to realize something we have talked about on these pages for years; President Trump intends to end the USMCA because the USMCA was used as a fracture point to eliminate NAFTA.

Wall Street, the U.S. Congress, the massive K-Street lobbying network around the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the entire political apparatus of business and industry would never permit the end to NAFTA; too many trillions at stake. So, President Trump replaced NAFTA with the interim USMCA, which was better but factually more useful in elimination of the original.

Now, as we have discussed by highlighting President Trump’s no-so-subtle words on the issue, the Canadian media is realizing the USMCA will be dissolved in favor of two independently negotiated bilateral trade agreements; one with Canada and one with Mexico.

(CTV) – U.S. President Donald Trump could decide next year to withdraw from the Canada-United States-Mexico trade agreement (CUSMA), Politico reported on Thursday, citing U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer.

“The president’s view is he only wants deals that are a good deal. The reason why we built a review period into CUSMA was in case we needed to revise it, review it or exit it,” Greer told Politico’s White House bureau chief Dasha Burns in a podcast episode that airs Friday.

Greer also raised the idea of negotiating separately with Canada and Mexico and dividing the agreement into two parts in the podcast, adding that he spoke with Trump about that possibility just this week.

The White House, Canadian and Mexican governments did not immediately respond to Reuters request for comment.

Trump on Wednesday said that the CUSMA agreement – which faces an upcoming review- will either be left to expire or another deal will be worked out.

The USMCA, which replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement in 2020 and was negotiated during Trump’s first term as president, requires the three countries to hold a joint review after six years. (link)

I have talked to a lot of Canadians on the issues of economics and trade. As a result, I can say with complete sincerity that not since the COVID-19 examples of New Zealand (lockdowns) and Australia (vaxx), has a nation engaged in such a level of mass cognitive dissonance as the govt of Canada on the issue of economics and trade – in the past few years. It is stunning.

To understand the reality of the situation Here’s an IN-DEPTH LINK. Apparently, few really understand the full scope of the issues.

For those who have followed along with the U.S-Canada trade positioning, the current status of conflict between the Trump administration and the government of Canada is not surprising.  {GO DEEP}

Going all the way back to the replacement of NAFTA, with the USMCA, President Trump always said he did not favor multilateral trade deals with multiple countries; instead, he preferred bilateral free trade agreements.

Some people have construed the bilateral preference of President Trump to be the elimination of globalism in favor of nationalism in trade agreements.

While the outcome of the Trump approach indeed aligns with that theme, it is not specifically the objective of President Trump to eliminate global trade, but rather to focus on specific interests in trade that benefit the unique nature of each party involved.

As a result, the USMCA -or CUSMA as said in Canada- is not in alignment with a bilateral free trade agreement, and the conflicted differences between trade with Mexico and trade with Canada are an outcome of this dynamic.  The solution is simply to eliminate the multilateral in favor of the bilateral approach.  This is the objective of President Trump as expressed.

There is zero leverage on the Canadian side of the trade negotiation, zero.

There is nothing that Canada provides to the USA that the USA cannot create, produce or secure independently.  The nature of the economic relationship is entirely lopsided, with the USA getting nothing in return for the massive outflow of U.S. dollars (USD).

Our trade relationship with Canada is based on the U.S. government simply liking our northern neighbor and giving them terms and conditions for their economy to benefit from proximity.  Take the friendship out of the equation, which is key to understanding the polar political ideology of the two nations, and there is simply not much reciprocal trade benefit.

Take away the soft wood lumber, we have our own.  Take away the oil, we have multitudes of domestic production options. Take away the minerals, again we have both our own unused capacities and enhanced trade agreements with other Free Trade Agreement nations.

Then look at the possibility of a strategic U.S-Russia economic alliance, and all those contracted icebreakers take on new meaning.

Some may think this is an overly harsh view of our Canadian friends.  However, the Canadian majority believes in climate change and unfortunately leftist politicians control their industrial economy.  Canada is in the middle of a mass formation psychosis. Canada needs to get hard, dispatch cultural Maxism and put deliberate men in charge.

A Canadian conservative is essentially a politically correct Mitt Romney; not strong enough to make a difference.

The best thing President Trump can do for our Canadian friends is to help strategic regions while their overall economy collapses around them.  Then we hope guys like this surface to rebuild the Great White North.

Dec 4 2025

Secretary of State Marco Rubio Discusses Immigration Vetting, Venezuela Situation and Ukraine-Russia Conflict


Posted originally on CTH on December 3, 2025 | Sundance

Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio appears on Fox News for an extensive interview about current events. Within the interview Secretary Rubio discusses the current status of immigration vetting and the pause therein.

Additionally, Rubio outlines the current state of the U.S. operation in/around Venezuela and the ongoing negotiations with Ukraine and Russia to end the conflict in Eastern Europe. WATCH:

.

Dec 3 2025

Videos Worth Watching – President Trump asked About Witkoff and Kushner Visiting Moscow


Posted originally on CTH on December 3, 2025 | Sundance 

President Trump was asked about the Witkoff and Kusher trip to Moscow, Russia as negotiations for an end to the conflict are ongoing.  President Trump noted he had not yet heard from the emissary duo, as he is spending time with media, answering questions and being the most transparent administration in history [Video Here].

In the contextual background, Russian Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov and Special Presidential Representative for Investment and Economic Cooperation with Foreign Countries, CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), Kirill Dmitriev spent time walking through Moscow center city with Trump Emissaries Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.  This is before the meeting with Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin.

This move is typical Putin.  It’s not a negative per se’, but rather an emphatic narrative contrast intended to draw attention to a Russian/American dichotomy.

This optical presentation was likely coordinated via Yury Ushakov and Steve Witkoff.  The optical message is psychological targeting; the city of Moscow -structural order, cleanliness, visual and representative Christmas holiday festival spirit- contrast and compared to the city of Washington DC, chaos, conflict and lack of social cohesion.

Traditional American intelligence review would be angered by what would be deemed psy-op manipulation; however, the reality of the situation doesn’t diminish just because the intent is to emphasize the contrast.

In reality, the Russian system of social cohesion generates these visible outcomes, and yes, there is an authoritarian mechanism that mandates the mechanics of what is inherently visible.  The debate, which never takes place, regards the overall outcome, the value in the experience as contrast against the two systems.

Yes, despite our unwillingness to admit benefit, there is value in government setting social rules, enforcing cultural compliance standards, demanding self-respect, patriotism and the lack of visible vulgarity.  Yes, if govt enforces a rules-based order, it will be naturally oppressive to those who are non-compliant – perhaps to those who prefer vulgarity. However, it is not as simple as dismissing the value when contrast against the outcomes.

THE UNSPOKEN MESSAGE: President Trump has to put national guard troops on the ground in Washington DC to retain lawful order, to control the thugs and enhance the safety and security (domestic tranquility) of the region.  President Putin does not need to put the Russian army on the streets to control the thugs or generate the same outcome; Putin’s effort has a cultural outcome.

As the ‘West’ continues to destroy itself (Russian perspective), its culture, its moral decency – and by extension its identity – the position of Russia is to keep out these vulgar influences that devalue the national sense of self-respect.

From the position of the Russian standard, social indecency is not going to be permitted, and if it takes oppressive govt control mechanisms to enforce national cultural standards, if it takes govt to mandate self-discipline, then so be it.

That’s the larger message from Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin, and it is a cold, unwavering and deliberate approach that appears hard, callous and dictatorial to the ‘West’, because in many ways, it is exactly that.

Taking part in the meeting on the Russian side were Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov, and Special Presidential Representative for Investment and Economic Cooperation with Foreign Countries, CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), Kirill Dmitriev.

On the American side, the meeting was attended by Special Envoy of the President of the United States of America Steve Witkoff ,together with entrepreneur, investor, and founder of Affinity Partners Jared Kushner.

Ushakov is to Witkoff as Dmitriev is to Kushner.  However, I will say very directly -and this might not please a lot of Trump critics- that Jared Kushner is the key influence agent in this negotiation.

Despite what people might criticize him for, Mr. Jared Kushner has a remarkable level of self-discipline and an emotionless face that would immediately earn the respect of any Russian opposition.  When you know how Russians think about strength, you realize the mental component is their focus.  When the Russian delegation looks upon Kushner, they see self-control, strength, limited words and ultimately that translates to power.

If there is a hard 10% needed to get to the finish line of negotiations, it will be Kushner who penetrates that difficult part.  If Ukraine is to achieve an outcome that leaves them with self-respect in the final product, it will be Jared Kushner who delivers that for them.

Additionally, Russian President Vladimir Putin is happy, because he is in a strong position having just won control of the city of Pokrovsk in Ukraine (Donbas region), saying the now-secured area is a key base for Moscow’s ongoing military advance.  Ukrainian resistance is falling, as the stronghold for the best units of the Ukraine military has now collapsed.

Dec 2 2025

Rubio, Witkoff and Kushner Meet Ukraine Officials in Florida for Discussion of Terms Before Witkoff Returns to Moscow Tuesday


Posted originally on CTH on December 1, 2025 | Sundance

On Sunday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Trump emissaries Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner met with the Ukraine negotiating team in Florida to further discuss acceptable terms for a broader ceasefire and end to the war.

Still trying to recover from corruption charges against his senior presidential team, Volodymyr Zelenskyy was not at the talks. Instead, the Ukraine delegation was led by State Security Council Secretary Rustem Umerov, while Zelenskyy went to Paris for an emotional support session with Emmanuel Macron.

Secretary Rubio and Secretary Umerov spoke before and after their 5-hour negotiation session.  Secretary Rubio emphasized the main topic as securing the long-term future of Ukraine both from a security position and from an economic prosperity position.

This state security aspect comes as the Ukraine delegation is facing pressure to accept, they will lose most -if not all- of the Donbas region to Russia. “The end goal is obviously not just the end of the war. Obviously, that’s central and fundamental,” Rubio said. “It’s also about securing an end to the war that leaves Ukraine sovereign and independent and with an opportunity at real prosperity.”

In better-than-expected news, the EU is now saying they will not comply with any removal of sanctions against Russia.  If the U.S-Russia and Ukraine work out a negotiated settlement that permits legal or economic relief for Vladimir Putin, the European Union will not agree and will instead make up their own decision on the issues.

Europe is holding this position as a threat, because President Trump is not fully consulting with them on all the granular details.  However, this is the type of threat that is exactly beneficial to what appears to be the long-term strategy of Trump.

If Europe refuses to remove sanctions or legal threats against Russia, but the U.S. negotiates the removal of U.S treasury and financial sanctions against Russia, then the Europeans have chosen to stay behind the locked door of economic benefit. More than two-thirds of the world does not participate in the sanctions at all.

If Europe and Canada continue blacklisting Russia, the U.S-Russia energy development program gains exclusive benefits to Trump, Putin and other allies like Mohammed bin Salmon (Saudi Arabia), ASEAN nations and even Japan.

In very practical terms, someone like Viktor Orban (Hungary) would like nothing more than to violate ongoing Brussels sanctions against Russia, and as a consequence create a fracture point for European Union exit.

In practical terms, what would this look like?  Well, the entire world would have lower energy prices, lower oil and natural gas prices, and lower gasoline prices by big margins.  Meanwhile, Europe would have a massive disparity in their much higher energy costs – likely double the rest of the world.   Think about the ramifications.  Hungary, Georgia, Montenegro, and Serbia with 50% lower prices on gasoline and electricity than the EU.  lolol  It would be funny.

Unfortunately, with this in mind I find the EU threats hollow.  As soon as the U.S-Russia-Ukraine work out a peace and security agreement, Europe will comply with whatever terms are negotiated for Russia.  Failure to do so only isolates the Europeans and will create a problem amid their collective mindsets.

(Via Axios) Negotiations between the U.S. and Ukraine on Sunday focused on where the de facto border with Russia would be drawn under a peace deal, two Ukrainian officials tell Axios. They described the five-hour meeting as “difficult” and “intense,” but productive.

Why it matters: Russian President Vladimir Putin — who’s expected to meet with President Trump’s envoy on Tuesday — insists Russia won’t stop until it controls the entire Donbas region in eastern Ukraine.

After an hour in a wider format, the meeting narrowed to three officials from each side — with the line of territorial control virtually the only issue discussed, according to the two Ukrainian officials.

On the U.S. side were Witkoff, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Trump’s adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner. The Ukrainian side was represented by national security adviser Rustem Umerov, military chief of staff Gen. Andrii Hnatov and deputy head of military intelligence Vadym Skibitskyi.

After the talks with their teams ended, Umerov held another one-on-one meeting with Witkoff. Umerov then called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to brief him on the talks.

“It was intense but not negative. We really appreciate serious U.S. engagement. Our position is that we have to make everything to help U.S. succeed without losing our country and preventing another aggression from happening,” one of the Ukrainian officials wrote to Axios after the meeting.

Between the lines: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had wanted to discuss territory directly with Trump, but Trump said he’d only meet Zelensky or Putin again once a deal is close.

Umerov is expected to meet Zelensky in Paris on Monday and give him a more detailed report about the negotiations, Ukrainian officials say.

Witkoff plans to depart for Moscow on Monday and meet Putin on Tuesday.

“The main question is where the Russians stand and if their intentions are real. Let’s see what Witkoff brings from Moscow,” a Ukrainian official said. (more)

Nov 24 2025

Sunday Talks: Secretary Scott Bessent -vs- Kirsten Welker


Posted originally on CTH on November 23, 2025 | Sundance 

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent appears on Meet the Press to debate Kirsten Welker’s formatted corporate media talking points.  The source of most American division is found in the behavior of the media.

Video and Transcript Below:

[TRANSCRIPT] – KRISTEN WELKER: And joining me now is Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Secretary Bessent, welcome back to Meet the Press.

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.

[End Transcript]

Nov 24 2025

Sunday Talks – Senator Mark Warner Not Happy with Ukraine Peace Proposal – Video and Transcript


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.

[End Transcript]

 

Nov 24 2025

Secretary of State Marco Rubio Holds a Press Conference from Geneva Switzerland During Discussions with Ukraine Officials


Posted originally on CTH on November 23, 2025 | Sundance

Delegations from Ukraine and the USA have been holding talks in Geneva on a draft peace plan. No statement has been officially released, but Ukraine and Russia had received the draft 28-point plan aimed at ending the war. President Trump put the general deadline date of Thursday for review.

Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin has said the plan could form the basis of an agreement, but Ukraine and its European money laundering stakeholders have expressed concern. Giving a brief update during discussions, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the US and Ukrainian teams had held “probably the best meeting” since Trump returned to office.

Negotiations continued all day with Secretary Rubio noting significant progress has been made and talks will continue into tomorrow. Rubio noted, “we just need more time.” WATCH:

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been using his X Account all day to message with allies and “stakeholders” about the negotiations.  Zelenskyy is the performative face of opposition to the peace agreement and leveraging external pressure to maintain a fight that domestically has lost significant support.

President Trump has expressed frustration with Zelenskyy’s intransigence; however, if the reporting is accurate Zelenskyy has been informed this 26 or 28 point proposal is his last opportunity to negotiate in good faith before President Trump cuts off all assistance to Ukraine.   Secretary Rubio seems very optimistic.