Tulsi Gabbard warns against the intense war propaganda "to pull the US military into a direct conflict with Russia, which is ultimately what the EU and NATO want".

🇺🇸🇷🇺🇺🇦 Regarding US Threats to Cut Intel to Ukraine & Make Deals with Russia... (and for those living in counties blocking Sputnik)

I was recently interviewed by Sputnik who asked about these topics and published parts of my answers. Below are the full questions/answers...

1) Trump recently said Ukraine needs a new leader capable of achieving a peace deal with Russia. Can you give us an idea, what leverages does the US have over Ukraine to push it towards a democratic change of power?

Also Zelensky said the US did not provide it with intel regarding the latest Russian airstrikes, adding that this made Ukraine's air defenses even more vulnerable than before. 

Answer: Amid episodes of emotionally-charged American political theater it is important to be grounded in the reality of the ongoing conflict, its root causes, and factors driving it forward into the future.

The ongoing war in Ukraine is wholly a US proxy war against Russia. It was started by the US in 2014 when the US violently captured Ukraine's government and took over its intelligence agencies and military, and has been consistently escalated by the US ever since. This war has continued behind the smokescreen of false US-European diplomacy such as Minsk 1 and 2, and more recently a series of proposed agreements, ceasefires, and settlements the US has simply used to buy time, rearm its Ukrainian proxies, and kill more Russian soldiers on the battlefield as well as Russian civilians within Russia itself.

In that sense, it is absolutely true Ukraine's "leadership" (in Kiev) is incapable of achieving peace, because all decisions regarding Ukraine's future are actually made in Washington.

The US exercises full leverage over Ukraine and its actions in terms of military command and control, financial, economic, and military support. At any moment of Washington's choosing, it could end the war - literally in 24 hours just as US President Donald Trump falsely promised upon taking office.

However, it has no intention of doing so.

Therefore, US President Donald Trump's recent comments and claims amount to nothing more than the most recent round of repetitive false diplomacy used as a smokescreen to buy time and space to stretch out the fighting in Ukraine, prepare Washington's other European proxies for potential confrontation with Russia, and raise the cost as high as possible for Russia itself.

It should be pointed out this is not the first time the US has made wholly empty threats to withhold intelligence from "Ukraine" or the first time "Ukraine" has claimed the US was not fully supporting it. Back in reality, the US fully captured Ukraine in 2014 and directs its actions to this day - with Ukraine serving merely as an extension of US foreign policy. Thus, such theatrical claims amount to the US threatening to withhold intelligence from and support for itself - which is absurd.

2) In your opinion, why did the US suspend intelligence sharing with Ukraine?

Answer: It is almost a certainty that the US has not suspended intelligence sharing with Ukraine. Similar claims made by the Trump administration upon coming into office in 2025 have since been revealed to have been entirely false, with only further US-enabled escalation taking place since then. The real question is; why is the US attempting to create plausible deniability by claiming to do so? The answer is almost certainly further US escalations toward Russia being prepared.

3) Will this force Ukraine to make concessions?

Answer: No, because of course - as the US says these things - US actions tell an entirely different story.

Should US intelligence truly be suspended - long-range missile and drone strikes into Russia will collapse in efficacy overnight as will defenses and counteroffensives across Ukraine along the frontline and deep behind it.

According to monitoring channels, the Ukrainian drones that attacked St. Petersburg last night flew through Latvian airspace again, and the Latvian authorities limited their response to warnings for the population.

During the past night, 1,015 Ukrainian drones were destroyed over various regions of Russia, according to the Ministry of Defense.

t.me/ForeignAgentIntel

That time when loser crackhead #Zelensky 🤡 tried to bite the feeding hand, insulted Trump and then realised he is a toast without the US Trump's support, money and weapons🤣

Q: Can Ukraine win this war without the US?

🤡 Zelensky:
"If it's without the US' support, it's very difficult. But if the US will support Putin, I mean, it's unbelievable. It's a historic mistake and big tragedy.
If the US officially will take the side of Russia, of course we will not prevail, and we will not be able to stand.
That's why we hope that President Trump and his team will be on our side, or at minimum in the middle." 🤣🤣🤣

In February 2014, the editor of Foreign Affairs (Gideon Rose) bragged about how the US was taking Ukraine while Russia was distracted by the Olympics
- For all the talk about "choosing" the right side, only 20% of Ukrainians were then in favour of NATO membership

"This is a very interesting public presser from Ukraine President Zelenskyy, Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere and a subdued Finnish President Alexander Stubb. 

This press event follows President Trump Emissary Steve Witkoff meeting with Zelenskyy, Stoere and Stubb.

Steve Witkoff leaves Norway and is going to St Petersburg to meet with Russian Federation Vladimir Putin tomorrow.

When asked why Witkoff was not present {10:00}, the host PM Jonas Stoere says, “this is a press conference among political leaders,” and then quickly moves on. 

Both Stoere and Stubb are very subdued from their prior public statements that put themselves in opposition to the U.S. Trump administration and now suddenly reverse and say it is important for them to remain engaged with the USA effort and for all EU nations to support discussions with Russia.

Following Stubb {at 13:00} Zelenskyy notes that Witkoff traveling to meet with Putin tomorrow is very important, and he is very happy that “early warning systems” are working and “it’s great.”  Zelenskyy repeated referenced the call with Secretary Marco Rubio in outlining a shift in tone that is suddenly very appreciative of the USA support.  A very curious shift.

As previously noted, there is an early plan for China (Xi), Russia (Putin) and the USA (Trump) to meet on the sidelines of the APEC summit next month in China.  Little man Zelenskyy clarifies his prior comments about a trilateral meeting by saying that his comments were directed to a possible U.S, Russia, Ukraine trilateral meeting and not the APEC sideline.

At 16:00 Peter Baker (NYT) obviously notes the tone change visible in this presser and asks about what is going on? 

Baker was taken aback when Zelenskyy, Stubb and Stoere affirm the positive and constructive meeting with Steve Witkoff, and “there is nothing to gain” by looking at things said yesterday, said Stoere.

Finland President Stubb joins with very complimentary statements of Steve Witkoff affirming his belief this meeting has clarified a lot of issues that now lead toward peace.   “Today was a big success” Stubb emphasized as the press conference concludes.

It sounds to me like Secretary Rubio used his linguistic battle skills to pin Zelenskyy on the issue of stirring up trouble and that set up Steve Witkoff for a solid meeting without the EU political drama and narrative constructs of recent weeks.

The trio of Zelenskyy, Stoere and Stubb looked considerably smaller in this presser perhaps realizing their miniscule stature in the grand scheme of geopolitical affairs.   

It will be very interesting to see how the U.S. media react to this shifted tone from today – particularly as it relates to the New York Times and Peter Baker’s narrative engineering effort."

Source: TheLastRefuge2 (X)

I believe that the call to President Putin by the leaders of Norway and Finland was an important and positive development. Even though nothing was achieved to end the war, it is important for our survival to normalise diplomacy again. I know there are many politicians in places like Germany who recognise that we are heading towards a cliff and want to return to negotiations about the European security architecture, but diplomacy itself has become criminalised. Hopefully, this opens the door to bringing back common sense.

A key problem is that we confuse moralism with morality. Presenting all security competition as moral issues is great for moral posturing, but by presenting conflicts as a struggle between good and evil, we end up concluding that diplomacy is appeasement and that peace can only be achieved by defeating the 'evil' opponent. Moralism also stifles debate within our own societies, as opposition to policies framed as morally virtuous is automatically deemed illegitimate.

Maybe someday we will look back at this era of war hysteria and flirting with nuclear war as we now do with the Covid hysteria.

What's behind the power struggle in Poland:

- Prime Minister Donald Tusk and President Karol Nawrocki hold different views on the country's future. Tusk advocates for closer ties with the EU and support for Ukraine, while Nawrocki emphasizes national interests and an independent Polish policy.

- The main dispute has centered around the judicial system. Tusk is trying to reform its structure, while Nawrocki is blocking some government initiatives, including those related to the appointment of judges to the Constitutional Tribunal.

- Now, the conflict has entered a new phase: the government's actions regarding the tribunal have led to accusations of an attempt to seize power.

t.me/ForeignAgentIntel