Sunday Talks – Ukrainian MP Slams ‘Nonsense’ Proposal To Swap Ukrainian Territory For Russian-Occupied Territory


Posted originally on CTH on August 10, 2025 | Sundance

According to CBS, President Trump is freezing out the CIA in advance of the meeting between himself and Vladimir Putin in Alaska next Friday.  The general auspices are that President Trump has instructed his intelligence team not to discuss the details of the meeting with the 5-eyes countries (U.K, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the U.S. CIA); however, the coded message is smartly for the administration to be careful with the CIA.

From this proactive move, we can infer that at least a few people around Trump (Witkoff, Rubio) understand how the USIC will work to throw a wrench in any geopolitical reset.  As the former Chair of the SSCI, Rubio holds a great deal of value in negotiating this issue.

The friction point becomes clear when you listen to Ukrainian MP Yehor Cherniev criticize a proposal to exchange Ukrainian territory that is currently occupied by Russian forces.  WATCH:

.

Nobody Puts Zelensky in a Corner!


Posted originally on Rumble on Bright Bart News Network on: August, 9, 2025

BRAT: “The Deal For Zelensky Is Kyiv Or No Kyiv, It’s Not A Peace Deal, It’s The Survival Of Ukraine”


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannon’s War Room on: August 9, 2025

THAYER: “Nagasaki Is So Important, It Reverberates With The Problems And Concerns We Have Today”


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannon’s War Room on: August 9, 2025

Chance of War Increases in Sept, Genius Act War Bonds, Neo Cons Surrounding Trump w/ Martin Armstrong


Posted originally on Aug 10, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |  

Marcus Vetter on War


Posted originally on Aug 10, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |  

A German INTERVIEW of Marcus Vetter on War

Berlin Marcus Armstrong

If you look back today: What has become of Angela Merkel’s statement “We can do this”? Has this vision been fulfilled or has it fractured?

Unfortunately, in my view, today this vision lies completely in ruins. It was the last stand of a truly humanistic approach, one that deeply divided Germany. Those who viewed the statement critically were often unfairly labeled as “right-wing” by those who applauded it. But a societal challenge of such magnitude can only be mastered together, because the truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle. Both sides had a point, and should have approached the motto “We can do this” with much more prudence and solidarity. Today, we are faced with a social landscape in shambles. A large part of society supports an unprecedented rearmament of Europe. Those who warn against it are often silenced. War rhetoric is now coming from parties that once had a pacifist orientation. The world is upside down and hardly recognizable anymore.

In your films you often talk about reconciliation, identity, and social change. What stories should be told today to rethink integration and social cohesion?

We should tell the same kinds of stories. Stories that show the cycle of violence can be broken. On an individual level, people are still open to such stories and can still be moved by them. At the same time, they are influenced by seemingly convincing arguments – for example, that a Russian war of aggression can only be decided on the battlefield and that one can only respond to it with strength. Other opinions are no longer truly allowed in the media. In my view, this is fundamentally wrong. War itself is the greatest war crime, as Ben Ferencz – once the youngest prosecutor in the Nuremberg Trials – put it. And he was right. In war, there is no morality, no humanity. Truth is the first casualty of any war. Through propaganda slogans we are conditioned to believe that strength is the only answer, because otherwise the enemy will overrun us.

When Hermann Göring was asked in Nuremberg how they had managed to unite all of Germany for a war of aggression, he said: “Of course, the people don’t want war… But… the people can always be driven to the bidding of the leaders. That’s easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for endangering the country. It works the same in every country.”

It is very hard for me to endure the current developments. We are ready to take increasingly extreme positions. Some want to raze Gaza to the ground and root out evil entirely, others place all the blame solely on Israel and are just as extreme in their rhetoric. There are only a few left who are willing to build bridges.

That is why I have re-edited a trilogy of films I shot in Palestine and Israel between 2008 and 2012, and expanded it with a fourth film about the International Criminal Court. This last one – WAR AND JUSTICE – is a profoundly pacifist film. When people see it, they are often willing to rethink their stance on war.

THE HEART OF JENIN tells the story of Palestinian father Ismael Khatib from Jenin, whose son was killed by Israeli soldiers and who, despite his deep grief, decided to donate his son’s organs to Israeli children as a gesture of peace.

https://www.war-and-justice.de

CINEMA JENIN – THE STORY OF A DREAM tells how hundreds of volunteers from all over the world came to Jenin to join Ismael Khatib – from The Heart of Jenin – in restoring an old cinema that had been closed during the First Intifada. Cinema Jenin opened in the summer of 2011 and was operated as a cinema for 5 years before being demolished in December 2016 and replaced by a shopping mall.

AFTER THE SILENCE tells the story of Israeli Yael Armanet, who lost her husband in a suicide bombing carried out by a Palestinian from Jenin. Inspired by Ismael Khatib’s gesture, she sets out to visit the family of the attacker in Jenin to find answers to what happened. The film was made possible and co-produced by the Palestinian cinema Cinema Jenin.

CIA Leakers Weaponize “Sources and Methods” Talking Points to Target DNI Tulsi Gabbard


Posted originally on CTH on August 9, 2025 | Sundance

Insiders within the Intelligence Community (IC), and specifically ongoing operators within the CIA, are targeting Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.

The least understood issue right now, is how isolated and alone Tulsi Gabbard is on her mission to bring sunlight to the Intelligence Community weaponization and corruption.

…”There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things”…

The IC uses various media leaks and narrative engineers as the tools against their enemy; in this case DNI Tulsi Gabbard.

The most common arrow in their manipulative quiver is the term “sources and methods.”  The Washington Post notes how the Intelligence Community is upset about DNI Tulsi Gabbard compromising their ‘sources and methods’ by releasing the House Intelligence Report that deconstructed the Russiagate Intelligence Community Assessment.

What has them so upset is Tulsi’s release of the House Intel report. This is the report that drove the FBI to raid Mar-a-Lago in an effort to retrieve it from Trump. This is the report that outlines how the CIA fabricated the Russiagate claims. Tulsi is being targeted for releasing this specific report. That tells you how important it is to the CIA.

WASHINGTON DC – […] The document that Gabbard ordered released on July 23 is a 46-page report stemming from a review begun in 2017 by majority Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee. It takes issue with U.S. intelligence agencies’ finding earlier that year that Russian President Vladimir Putin developed a preference for Trump over Democrat Hillary Clinton and aspired to help him win the election.

[…] The House report is the most sensitive document the Trump administration has yet released, and details of how its publication occurred have not been previously reported.

[…] The document contains multiple references to CIA human sources reporting on Putin’s plans. Such sources are among the agency’s most closely guarded secrets. After the report was completed in 2020, it was considered so sensitive that it remained in storage at the CIA rather than on Capitol Hill.

[…] as the Trump administration prepared to release the report publicly, there were multiple versions of it circulating, some with more redactions to protect sensitive information, current and former U.S. officials said. Gabbard, who has led the administration’s effort to relitigate the 2016 campaign, pushed to release as much as possible, they said.

“CIA put forward their proposed redactions and edits to the document,” said a person familiar with the process. Gabbard “has greater declassification authority than all other intelligence elements and is not required to get their approval prior to release.”

Trump then approved the publication of the version from Gabbard’s office “with minimal redactions and no edits,” this person said.

[…] It is unclear exactly how Trump gave his approval, or if he examined the competing versions of the House report beforehand. The White House did not respond to a request for comment. (READ MORE)

The HPSCI Report is Here ~

The HPSCI report release is what is driving the CIA bananas.

Despite efforts by Donald Trump to declassify the HPSCI report before leaving office, the CIA never released it.  No one except the internal Intelligence Community (CIA/DNI) had seen the HPSCI report until Tulsi Gabbard released it on July 22nd.  This is a key point, because the HPSCI report touches on all of the other declassified evidence recently released.

The authors of the HPSCI report had reviewed all of the same information John Durham reviewed.  The HPSCI report walks through the entire construct of the Intelligence Community Assessment ordered by President Obama on December 6, 2016.

Arguably, because of the underlying evidence reviewed to produce it, the HPSCI report is the most critical of the declassified release in the last few months. The HPSCI report walks through the timeline, as the ICA was created between early to late December 2016.

Do NOT forget. Tulsi Gabbard is essentially all alone on this mission of sunlight.

Tulsi’s isolation is the one issue people do not quite seem to understand.

Pam Bondi (AG) isn’t with her. Director Kash Patel (FBI) and Director John Ratcliffe (CIA) are not with her. Susie Wiles (CoS) is not with her. In all of these efforts DNI Tulsi Gabbard is all alone.

The Israel-First media and activist group is also aligned against her.

If you doubt that’s the scenario, show me a single voice from inside the administration who stood up to (even gently) defend her when Tulsi was attacked about her position on the Iran nuclear capabilities.

Tulsi is all alone.  She is all alone on this mission and even physically all alone when on task within the administration. Watch for it and you can clearly see it.  Once you see it, you cannot unsee it.

This is not about President Trump per se’. The Office of the President is not a significant participant at the moment, and those who control power within the Oval Office keep Tulsi isolated and away from the President.  However, if DNI Tulsi Gabbard turns against Palantir, she will be removed. Full stop.

We saw those Palantir boundary rails surface when DNI Gabbard was not fully behind the bombing of Iran.

People argue against the power of the ODNI, saying the office is a functionary only.  These are historically old arguments by people who do not fully understand the nature of the silo system.

Yes, this is the typical viewpoint; however, readers on these pages will note that I have said repeatedly for years now, the DNI position can be used for powerfully good purposes.

The DNI can look at anything in Washington DC.  Anything, inside any silo.

As noted by the angered WaPo, “Gabbard has greater declassification authority than all other intelligence elements and is not required to get their approval prior to release.” 

The DNI can look at anything in any silo and put sunlight upon it.  Yet, people claim the DNI has no power.  lol

The ability to bring sunlight is power.

Go Tulsi!

Zelenskyy Rejects President Trump Meeting With Russian President Putin to Formulate Ceasefire Terms


Posted originally on CTH on August 9, 2025 | Sundance

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is once again rejecting any consideration for President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss terms for a ceasefire without his involvement.

On a Twitter storm Saturday, Zelenskyy rejected the thought of giving any Ukranian territory to Russia in exchange for peace. “The answer to the Ukrainian territorial question already is in the Constitution of Ukraine. No one will deviate from this—and no one will be able to. Ukrainians will not gift their land to the occupier,” Zelenskyy said.

President Trump announced that he would meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin on August 15, in Alaska.

Zelenskyy reacted, carrying the message from the global intelligence community who support the ongoing conflict, and does not like the idea of the USA and Russia determining the outcome for Ukraine.

Zelenskyy has banned opposition parties in Ukraine, taken control of media, targeted religious groups who he claims are subversive to his interests and cancelled elections in order to remain in power.  Now Zelenskyy hides behind the claim of a constitution his regime modified in order to ensure he alone controls the pathways to peace.

(Via NBC) – A defiant Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy declared Saturday that his countrymen “will not give their land to occupiers,” after President Donald Trump suggested that a peace deal would include some “swapping” of territories with Russia.

“The answer to Ukraine’s territorial question is already in the constitution of Ukraine,” Zelenskyy said in a message on Telegram early Saturday. “No one will and no one can deviate from it. Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier.” (more)

It has been reported that Vladimir Putin’s ceasefire terms include Russia totally controlling the Donbas region.

WASHINGTON – […] Under the proposal being floated by the Trump administration, Russia would agree to a freeze of the war along the contact line in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, where Moscow controls less land than in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, a person familiar with the matter told POLITICO.

In return, Russia would be allowed to keep the Donbas, said the person, granted anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomacy, as others in this article.

U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff returned from a meeting with Putin earlier this week and told Trump that the Russian president had presented the terms under which the Kremlin would agree to stop hostilities in Ukraine, a White House official told POLITICO.

The official declined to describe Russia’s terms, but Trump said land swaps between Russia and Ukraine are under discussion. (more)

President Trump does not view a meeting with Putin as a concession.

Appellate Court Quashes Judge Boasberg’s Contempt Proceedings Over Alien Enemies Act Deportations, Julie Kelly Reports


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannon’s War Room on: August 8, 2025

Phillip Patrick: “When We Were On The Gold Standard Things Like Runaway Inflation Didn’t Exist”


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannon’s War Room on: August 7, 2025