Pablo Picasso Crucifixion 1930
We live in the best timeline
pic.twitter.com/UTvsQVz7x9— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 22, 2025
Forbes
https://twitter.com/i/status/1893581562882748910
O’Leary
KEVIN O’LEARY: DOGE WILL BOOST THE PRODUCTIVITY OF THE WHOLE COUNTRY
“And I think it's a wonderful idea that this money stays in the economy [thanks to DOGE] instead of being wasted because it would make the whole country more productive.
I would bet you 7 out of 10 people on… https://t.co/fF5AQNt74b pic.twitter.com/3pIonv283v
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) February 23, 2025
Stephen Miller
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 22, 2025
Orban
USAID was the heart of a robust financial and power machine. A monster created to crush, crumble and erode the freedom and independence of nations so that the liberal-globalist empire could thrive. President @realDonaldTrump drove a stake through the heart of the empire. Now it’s… pic.twitter.com/VnYLUAGM5Z
— Orbán Viktor (@PM_ViktorOrban) February 23, 2025
Badass
https://twitter.com/i/status/1893469653617324371
Luongo
Even more than Patel, Bongino signals Trump is serious about gutting the FBI.
• FBI Freak Out As Dan Bongino Named Deputy Director (ZH)
On Sunday evening, President Donald Trump announced that former Secret Service agent and conservative talk show host Dan Bongino will become the new deputy director of the FBI – the agency that helped Obama and Hillary Clinton set Donald Trump us with the Russia Collusion hoax – which included leaks to the press, fabricating evidence, and die-hard deep state servants who vowed to destroy our president. And now – Bongino and newly minted FBI Director Kash Patel are in charge…
Thank you Mr. President, Attorney General Bondi, and Director Patel. pic.twitter.com/bJqIDbWLEE
— Dan Bongino (@dbongino) February 24, 2025
…which is not sitting well with current and former agency officials – or deep state journalists like NBC’s Ken Dilanian, who reports that the FBI Agents Association struck out against Bongino’s selection. Without naming Bongino directly, the Association lashed out over the fact that the Deputy Director has typically been an active Special Agent. “The FBI Deputy Director should continue to be an on-board, active Special Agent—as has been the case for 117 years for many compelling reasons, including operational expertise and experience, as well as the trust of our Special Agent population,” reads a memo obtained by WNBC’s Jonathan Dienst.
As the WSJ notes, The announcement sent shock waves through the FBI, whose new director Kash Patel had offered Republican senators private assurances that he would name a special agent with bureau experience to be his deputy, rather than a political outsider. Patel was sworn in at the White House on Friday. Leaders of the FBI Agents Association, who met with Patel in January, said the new director had agreed that the deputy should be a current special agent… Ken Dilanian echoed this sentiment, complaining on X that Bongino “has never spent a day working at the FBI, but he has spent many hours spouting baseless falsehoods about the bureau.”
Ken is still furious that Kash looks different than every other FBI Director.
The “traditionally” argument is a call for the elites to stay in charge. https://t.co/f7QlLDHyHq
— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) February 24, 2025
https://twitter.com/i/status/1893854114708156551
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Bad rep.
• FBI Director Patel To Take Over ATF Too – Will He Burn It To The Ground? (ZH)
Leftists were already apoplectic that Donald Trump managed to install firebrand Kash Patel as FBI director. Now, upping the ante, Trump is about to turn the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) over to Patel too, according to sources cited by multiple news outlets on Saturday evening. The extraordinary move has some wondering if Trump might move to dissolve the ATF altogether. Gun Owners of America has lauded Patel as being “fiercely pro-gun.” However, during his confirmation hearings, Patel skirted direct questioning about whether civilians should be allowed to own machine guns, or whether background checks are constitutional, saying, “Whatever the courts rule in regards to the Second Amendment is what is protected by the Second Amendment.”
Trump’s FBI Director pick, Kash Patel, is backed by a gun rights extremist group that opposes all forms of background checks on gun sales. The FBI runs the federal background check system.
Tell your senators to reject Kash Patel’s nomination: Text FBI to 644-33. pic.twitter.com/uflsECn0iA
— Everytown (@Everytown) January 30, 2025
The ATF is already the focus of a Trump II overhaul. Last week, Attorney General Pam Bondi fired the ATF’s top lawyer, Pamela Hicks. “These people were targeting gun owners. Not gonna happen under this administration,” Bondi told Fox News. The FBI and ATF both reside within the Department of Justice. Patel may be sworn in as acting director of the ATF this week, a Justice official told AP. The agency has roughly 5,500 employees — today, at least. With Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency looking to slash the federal employment rolls, the ATF should be a prime target for headcount reduction. The 1993 federal government massacre of innocents at Waco started with an ATF raid over dubious suspicions that the Branch Davidians were stockpiling prohibited weapons.
The 1993 federal government massacre of innocents at Waco started with an ATF raid over dubious suspicions that the Branch Davidians were stockpiling prohibited weapons.Better yet, many are hoping — and others fearing — that putting the ATF in Patel’s portfolio could signal that the ultimate objective is to dismantle it. That would be a bold move for a president who comes into his second term with a decidedly spotty record where the right to armed self-defense is concerned. Trump embraced “red flag” laws that empower police to seize firearms from people they deem dangerous, without due process. In 2018, Trump infamously told reporters, “Take the firearms first, and then go to court…I like taking the guns early…Take the guns first, go through due process second.” Exceeding its authority, his first-term ATF imaginatively reinterpreted the definition of an automatic weapon to include bump stocks, banned their sale, and demanded that civilians turn them in the ones they already owned. Trump promised to push for increasing the legal age for purchasing firearms to 18.
Patel needs to perform an exorcism on the ATF and then set the course for abolishing the entire thing.
The ATF is an unnecessary agency that exists solely to infringe upon the Second Amendment. https://t.co/buNfohXP61
— John Cardillo (@johncardillo) February 23, 2025
That said, Trump’s second term is off to a strong start on the gun rights front. On Feb 7, Trump signed an executive order that sought to curtail federal infringements on rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Among other things, the multifaceted order directed Bondi to:
• Catalogue and address all actions of the Biden administration that infringed on gun rights
• Reverse the heavy-handed “zero tolerance” or “enhanced regulatory enforcement policy” by which enforcement actions against Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL’s) — many of them small businesses –skyrocketed nearly six-fold.
• Review how firearms and ammunition are categorized and thus regulatedRightly resented by liberty-minded Americans, the ATF has played central roles in some of the most ghastly crimes committed by the federal government in recent decades, from the ATF entrapment of Randy Weaver that led to the killing of his 14-year-old son and his wife as she held their 10-month-old daughter, to the standoff in Waco that ended in the mass slaughter of 76 Branch Davidians, including 25 children. Like the vast majority of the federal government, there’s no constitutional authority for the ATF to exist in the first place. As the old joke goes, “Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.” Here’s hoping that wry aspiration become reality.
“Keep them locked up in Washington shuffling papers in bureaucratic tasks that go nowhere. When they retire or die, don’t replace them. Let the FBI dwindle away. We don’t need it.”
• Kash Patel Banishes 1,500 FBI Agents from Washington (Paul Craig Roberts)
Dear Kash,
I read that you are sending 1,500 FBI bad apples from DC into the states. Please keep them out of red states. Perhaps you are hoping they will resign. Otherwise it is a bad idea. The FBI are the Democrats’ secret police. They frame red state politicians, sheriffs, and attorneys general in order to advance Democrat power. The FBI even tried to frame President Trump and it seems to assassinate him. FBI agents have no integrity, Kash. If the FBI had any integrity, how could we have had eight years of the FBI’s efforts to destroy Donald Trump? Please don’t send any to Florida. If you have any in Florida, please take them out. We would prefer you keep them all in DC where you can keep an eye on them. Their presence in states and localities will pollute sheriff departments and local police with FBI corrupt practices.
Do you remember some years ago when it came to light that the FBI crime lab concocted whatever “evidence” prosecutors needed to convict defendants regardless of innocence or guilt? Have you forgot all the fake “Muslim terrorist” cases the FBI created as proof that Muslim terrorism was loose in America? The FBI would seek out demented individuals and groups and entice them to participate in a FBI concocted terrorist act and then arrest them prior to committing the act. Some of these victims are still in prison. The orchestrated arrests produced the headlines that kept the “war on terror” — actually a war for Greater Israel — going in the Middle East. Please Kash, spare MAGA America from FBI agents. Keep them locked up in Washington shuffling papers in bureaucratic tasks that go nowhere. When they retire or die, don’t replace them. Let the FBI dwindle away. We don’t need it.
Update to “What Did You Do Last Week?” in yesterday’s Debt Rattle. I think Musk welcomes all reactions. Plus, heads of agencies that say they will evaluate their own people, wlll be called upon to do just that.
• FBI, DoD, State Dept. Push Back On Musk’s Monday Email Deadline (ZH)
Following Elon Musk’s Saturday tweet instructing federal workers to list at least five accomplishments over the past week by Monday at midnight, or face termination – which was followed up by an actual email from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), several agencies issued statements telling their employees to pump the brakes. So far the Pentagon, FBI, State Department, and various parts of the Intelligence Community have told their employees to hold off.”When and if required, the Department will coordinate responses to the email you have received from OPM. For now, please pause any response to the OPM email titled ‘What did you do last week,” said DoD Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Darin Selnick in a statement.That followed a similar statement by FBI Director Kash Patel, who told the bureau that they would conduct their own employee reviews that align with the agency’s procedures. The State Department told its employees; “The State Department will respond on behalf of the Department. No employee is obligated to report their activities outside of their Department chain of command.”
Top leadership at the State Department has instructed its employees to ignore @elonmusk’s productivity inquiry, saying, essentially—we will evaluate our own people. A sign not all Trump officials are on board with Musk’s DOGE email. pic.twitter.com/9tsufc1rXA
— Yamiche Alcindor (@Yamiche) February 23, 2025
While National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard told employees of agencies she oversees in the Intelligence Community (IC): “Given the inherently sensitive and classified nature of our work, I.C. employees should not respond to the OPM email,” according to The Hill. Meanwhile, Everett Kelley, the national president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), wrote a letter to Musk and OPM acting director Charles Ezell, directing its 800,000 members to defy the demand. “Federal employees report to their respective agencies through their established chains of command; they do not report to OPM,” said Kelly, adding that the demand was “irresponsible” and a “sophomoric attempt” to cause confusion and intimidate federal workers. “I am also requesting that OPM rescind the email and apologize to all federal employees,” he said.
Musk has defended the ‘accomplishments’ email, saying that it was designed to weed out “non-existent people or the identities of dead people” who are collecting government checks. He also agreed with commentator and author Mike Cernovich that this also helps to identify high-performing employees.
I have a a few friends who are government employees wrapped up in the DOGE "chaos." And unlike what is being reported in the media, they are ecstatic…
Deep down, most (good) people want to feel like their job has meaning and purpose.
They've been spinning their wheels in…
— John LeFevre (@JohnLeFevre) February 23, 2025
Empty gestures.
“I can exchange this for NATO..” No, you can’t, Trump says no NATO for Ukraine.
“If peace for Ukraine..” C’mon, you blocked peace for three years.
• Zelensky Says He Is Ready To Resign (RT)
Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has expressed his readiness to “exchange” his position for NATO membership and step down if it is necessary to achieve peace in Ukraine.Speaking at the ‘Ukraine. Year 2025’ forum in Kiev on Saturday, Zelensky claimed he didn’t intend to remain in power for many years. “If peace for Ukraine, if you really need me to leave my post, then I’m ready. I can exchange this for NATO, if there are such conditions. I am focusing on the security of Ukraine today, not in 20 years, and I do not intend to be in power for decades,” Zelensky asserted. The Ukrainian leader also touched upon the ongoing row with the US regarding the proposed rare earths deal, in which Washington is seeking reimbursement for the military aid it has provided with earnings from Ukraine’s natural resources.
Zelensky confirmed having received the proposed deal, introduced by Washington after the first draft was shot down by Kiev, involves a sum of $500 billion. “It became clear that we are talking about a debt, that this is not an investment… If this money goes to the fund, and nothing comes from abroad, then we are paying off the debt,” Zelensky stated.“We had 100 [billion]. I am not ready to pay off 500 [billion]. And I am not even ready to fix it at the 100 [billion mark], because I will not recognize grants as debts. We should not pay off the debt,” he added. Paying off such sums would have put some 10 generations of Ukrainians in debt, thus indicating that such a deal was completely unacceptable, Zelensky stressed.
Zelensky’s presidential term expired in May 2024; critics have accused the Ukrainian leader of seeking to prolong the hostility in order to cling on power. Moscow has repeatedly signaled it does not regard him as a legitimate representative of the country and that he lacks the power to sign any comprehensive peace deal. This week, Trump pointed to Zelensky’s shaky legal position as well, branding him a “dictator without elections” and claiming that he currently has an extremely low approval rating in his country.
Why does he seek so hard to antagonize Trump? Who tells him to?
• Zelensky Warns Ukraine Won’t Pay Debt To US (RT)
Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has said his country will not repay the assistance it has received from the US since the start of the conflict with Russia. He also suggested that US President Donald Trump’s estimate that Kiev owes $350 billion is grossly exaggerated. In recent weeks, the US president has ramped up his demands that Kiev reimburse Washington for all the aid provided since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. Trump has argued that if the country is short on cash, it should sign over the rights to its natural resources as a form of compensation. Zelensky however, has refused, apparently deeming the terms too unfavorable.
Speaking at the ‘Ukraine. Year – 2025’ forum in Kiev on Sunday, Zelensky stated that “Ukraine received $100 billion [in aid] from the US, not $350, not $500, not $700,” stressing that he was “not ready to recognize even $100 billion” as debt. He claimed that he had reached an agreement with former US President Joe Biden that the money was being provided as a grant, and that no repayment had been expected. Zelensky stressed that if the Trump administration is not ready to give Ukraine a blank check, Kiev is prepared to enter into a “new agreement,” and that it should be considered carefully, in order for the parties to “remain friends and partners.” “I think I’m justified in my desire for dialogue [with the US],” the Ukrainian leader said, emphasizing that “I do not sign something which ten generations of Ukrainians would have to repay.”
The real voice of Europe.
• Ukraine Will Be A ‘Buffer’ State – Orban (RT)
Ukraine will not be granted NATO membership, but rather will serve as a “buffer” between the US-led military bloc and Russia, once the conflict with Moscow is over, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has predicted. Since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022, Budapest has consistently criticized the EU’s weapons deliveries to Ukraine. The Hungarian government has long advocated engaging Moscow in dialogue instead, with Orban repeatedly calling for sanctions imposed on Russia to be lifted. Delivering his annual state of the nation address in Budapest on Saturday, the prime minister said that the conflict, which “is on its way to its end,” is about “bringing the territory called Ukraine, which until then was a buffer zone, a buffer state between NATO and Russia, under NATO control.”
“Ukraine, or what remains of it, will once again be a buffer zone. It will not be a NATO member,” Orban predicted. “Why European and American liberals thought that the Russians would stand idly by is still a mystery,” the official remarked, claiming that the “experiment has failed.” Admitting Kiev into the EU will hinge on Budapest’s acquiescence, he added, hinting that Hungary would block Ukraine’s accession, should it deem it to be in its own national interests. Speaking in late December, Orban claimed that EU leaders “are living in a self-created bubble, refusing to acknowledge that this war cannot be won in the way they imagine.”
The official reiterated that the bloc’s sanctions, “instead of crippling Russia… have weakened Europe.” “Ukraine’s defeat is not just possible but increasingly likely,” the Hungarian prime minister warned at the time. Earlier that month, Orban pointed the finger at former US President Joe Biden for the escalation of hostilities in 2022. Russia has consistently cited Ukraine’s aspirations of joining NATO and the prospect of the bloc’s military infrastructure appearing in the neighboring nation as one of the main reasons behind the conflict. Moscow has also repeatedly described the conflict as a “proxy war” against Russia being waged by the West via Ukraine. US President Donald Trump has recently ruled out Kiev’s accession to NATO, acknowledging that Washington ignoring Moscow’s objections on the issue was among the things that caused the conflict to flare up.
Why is it so hard to determine if Ukraine has rare earths? Bloomberg energy and commodities opinion columnist Javier Blas on Feb 19: “Surprisingly, many people — not least, US President Donald Trump — seem convinced the country has a rich mineral endowment. It’s a folly..”[..] “The US Geological Survey, an authority on the matter, doesn’t list the country as holding any [rare earth] reserves. Neither does any other database commonly used in the mining business.”
• No Peace Without A Price: The Story Behind Trump’s Ukraine Demands (Poletaev)
As Washington’s push to secure Ukraine’s mineral wealth intensifies, the latest tensions between Donald Trump and Vladimir Zelensky highlight a growing rift. The US president and his team are actively pressing Kiev to sign off on a deal that would grant America access to Ukraine’s rare-earth metals in exchange for continued military aid. But is such an agreement feasible? And how did Ukraine’s underground riches suddenly become a focal point in US-Ukrainian relations? Ukraine possesses significant reserves of valuable minerals, including lithium (2% of global reserves), graphite (4%), nickel (0.4%), manganese, uranium, and rare-earth metals. Of particular note is titanium, with estimates suggesting Ukraine holds up to 20% of the world’s reserves. However, nearly 40% of these deposits are either under Russian control or located in frontline areas, significantly complicating any Western attempts to exploit them.
Since gaining independence, Ukraine has struggled to attract foreign investment into its mining sector. The only notable success was ArcelorMittal’s privatization of the Krivoy Rog Metallurgical Plant in the mid-2000s. Beyond that, Western companies have largely refrained from new projects, partly due to Article 13 of Ukraine’s constitution, which explicitly prohibits the privatization of natural resources. The idea of leveraging Ukraine’s mineral wealth to secure US military support was first floated by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a longtime advocate of deeper US-Ukraine ties. Graham has frequently traveled to Kiev during the war, delivering fiery speeches that, in essence, boil down to: You’re doing everything right, but Washington’s politicians are letting you down. With Trump looming on the horizon, Graham remarked that Trump isn’t particularly interested in values – he’s a businessman who thinks in terms of deals.
He suggested that Ukraine should propose something to Trump to convince him to invest in Ukraine’s defense. For example, why not offer him the country’s mineral resources? Zelensky’s inner circle latched onto this idea and eagerly pitched it to Trump when he took office. According to Ukrainian publications, Kiev believed that in return it would get weapons, investments, new mineral extraction technologies, a significant share of the mined resources, and perhaps even US troops in Ukraine. In essence, they imagined a scenario where everything would happen automatically, and they wouldn’t have to do anything. Trump, however, acted more like a mob boss from a Hollywood film. He dispatched an “accountant” to Kiev, who presented a document for Zelensky to sign and bluntly explained: what’s ours is ours; and what’s yours is also ours. Oh, and you owe us a kidney and an eye, while we owe you nothing at all. Here’s a pen — sign here.
According to Western media reports, Trump’s proposal stipulated that Ukraine would effectively hand over its mineral wealth as retroactive payment for the billions in US military aid already provided. In return, there would be no promise of future weapons shipments or security guarantees. Zelensky, who has spent the past three years desperately seeking such guarantees, was reportedly furious and refused to sign. The dispute came to a head at the Munich Security Conference, where Zelensky met with US Vice President J.D. Vance. The minerals issue dominated their discussion, and after Zelensky’s continued refusal to sign, the American side was openly frustrated. No surprises that it caused harsh reactions from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said he “was personally very upset” with the conversation top American officials had with Zelensky over the minerals deal, and suggesting that the Ukrainian leader had flip-flopped.
“The clash pits the U.S. and Russia on one side against Ukraine and Europe on the other..”
• Trump Admin Goes To War With Zelensky & Europe In UN (ZH)
As the war of words between the Trump and Zelensky administrations has grown, so has a diplomatic war and rift at the United Nations in New York. It has resulted in a crisis which may result in deadlock over a planned statement commemorating the Ukraine war’s three-year mark. The United States is seeking to stymie a draft resolution Ukraine prepared to bring before the UN Security Council and General Assembly. The Ukraine resolution has support from European nations, which is intended to call out three years since the Russian invasion, and condemn Moscow. The Ukrainian proposed text blames Russia for starting the war and calls for its swift end. “In a note to capitals, seen by The Wall Street Journal, U.S. diplomats told European counterparts over the past day that Washington would oppose the Ukrainian resolution if it advances and pressed the Europeans to persuade Kyiv to withdraw its text,” WSJ writes.
A Saturday statement on X by Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha blasted efforts to alter any resolution in a way that deflects blame from Russia. “The root causes of this war are Putin’s denial of Ukraine’s right to exist and his wish to destroy our nation,” he posted. “This is why Russia started this war, commits atrocities, and tries to change borders by force.” The chief complaint is that the US version makes no reference to who started it. The Trump administration is reportedly mulling a change proposed by Russia, which is a permanent member of the security council, and this has set off fierce diplomatic conflict, per Reuters: “The U.S. text mourns the loss of life during the “Russia-Ukraine conflict” and reiterates “that the principal purpose of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security and to peacefully settle disputes.” It also “implores a swift end to the conflict and further urges a lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia.”
Russia has proposed an amendment to that line – to be voted on by the General Assembly – so it reads “implores a swift end to the conflict, including by addressing its root causes, and further urges a lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia.” For Russia, key among the root causes is NATO expansion and Western efforts to militarize Ukraine, as well as Kiev’s anti-Russia actions in the predominantly speaking Donbass region. The WSJ underscores that in Trump playing nice with Russia, “The clash pits the U.S. and Russia on one side against Ukraine and Europe on the other, in the most dramatic display of trans-Atlantic tensions in years.” Apparently the US side isn’t budging even if the face of strong European push-back and pressure: The diplomats said the U.S. on Friday asked Ukrainian officials to withdraw their resolution. Ukraine refused. Meanwhile, British and French officials asked Washington to amend its draft. The U.S. said it wouldn’t, the diplomats said.
And the Trump administration is not going to back down, to be sure, as has been evident within only the first month of the Republican president returning to office. In siding with the Moscow-proposed change to the resolution, the US side is being accused by Europe and Ukraine as essentially caving to Russian demands. “We urge all U.N. member states to join the United States in this solemn pursuit,” Rubio has said of efforts to quickly negotiate peace. Ukraine’s FM Sybiha has meanwhile stated that in conversions with Rubio and American diplomats, “I stressed that Russian responsibility for the war cannot be put into question.”
* * *
Below is a full statement from Secretary of State Marco Rubio stating that The UN Must Act to Bring Peace to Europe:“President Trump is committed to ending the Russia-Ukraine war and to a resolution that leads to a lasting peace, not just a temporary pause. This Monday, February 24, will mark three years of the Russia-Ukraine war. This war has now dragged on for far too long, and at far too terrible a cost to Ukraine and Russia.The United States has proposed a simple, historic resolution in the United Nations that we urge all member states to support in order to chart a path to peace. This resolution is consistent with President Trump’s view that the UN must return to its founding purpose, as enshrined in the UN Charter, to maintain international peace and security, including through the peaceful settlement of disputes.
If the United Nations is truly committed to its original purpose, we must acknowledge that while challenges may arise, the goal of lasting peace remains achievable. Through support of this resolution, we affirm that this conflict is awful, that the UN can help end it, and that peace is possible. We strongly believe that this is the moment to commit to ending the war. This is our opportunity to build real momentum toward peace. We urge all UN member states to join the United States in this solemn pursuit.”
“Arestovich said Ukraine has already “lost the war due to our own stupidity, pride, and stubbornness,” warning that Kiev’s denial of reality would ultimately exclude it from having a say in the conflict’s outcome altogether..”
• Ex-Zelensky Aide Threatens To Jail Him For Life (RT)
Former aide to Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky Aleksey Arestovich has pledged to jail the incumbent Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky and the entirety of his “gang” in case he becomes the country’s new president. Arestovich, once Ukraine’s top spin doctor, made the remarks on Friday while speaking to journalist Aleksandr Shelest. Asked whether he would arrest Zelensky should he get elected, Arestovich pledged to detain the country’s incumbent leader and his whole “gang,” adding that it was up to a court to ultimately decide their fate.
“I will give the order to detain him. And no foreign power will save him and his gang. We will catch everyone, no matter where they are hiding, we will get them out from under the ground, bring them in and we will deliver the verdict live on air. No, not even a hair will fall from his head. He will get jailed – and I believe – for life,” Arestovich stated. The ex-aide accused his former boss of killing off Ukrainians “by the tens of thousands” just for the sake of keeping his “beloved” power, which he has been ultimately using to “kill and rob.” Arestovich also pledged to reshape the Ukrainian governing model and make the state “face the people,” adding he will use force if necessary to reach the goal.Arestovich was a long-time associate of Zelensky, with the ties between the two going back to their time in show business.
During Zelensky’s presidency, Arestovich became his informal adviser and a top propagandist, heralding a purportedly imminent victory in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. He left the role in early 2023 after contradicting the official narrative around a deadly missile incident. Arestovich has grown increasingly critical of his former boss and has since moved to the US, claiming that Kiev wants him jailed on politically-motivated charges. Earlier this month, Arestovich said Ukraine has already “lost the war due to our own stupidity, pride, and stubbornness,” warning that Kiev’s denial of reality would ultimately exclude it from having a say in the conflict’s outcome altogether. “We have created a society of mutual hatred and intolerance, in which every individual is right and everyone collectively is to blame,” he said.
“The charade is over. And unless Zelensky undergoes a complete and immediate transformation, the war will end without him. One way or another, it is coming to a close. The show is over.”
• The Collapse Of The Zelensky Cult (Carlson/Mahncke)
At long last, someone has said it. Trump has finally called it like it is—Zelensky is the emperor with no clothes. In fact, he’s the dictator with no clothes, propped up by Western elites who refused to see what was in plain sight. But the illusion is shattered. Trump didn’t just call him a dictator, he shut him out of peace talks and made it clear that if Zelensky wants to be taken seriously, he needs to hold elections, abandon his defiant posturing, and start behaving like a statesman rather than a petulant client. For years, wherever Zelensky went, Western elites and their media lapdogs treated him as untouchable—questioning him was practically a crime. The adulation didn’t even begin in 2022 when full-scale war erupted.
It started back in 2019, when Zelensky became the vehicle for Trump’s first impeachment, cast as the poor, beleaguered leader whom Trump had supposedly tried to extort. It was all a lie, but that didn’t matter. The media and political class needed him propped up, so they did—shielding him from scrutiny no matter how absurd his behavior became. The arrogance and defiance Zelensky has displayed didn’t emerge in a vacuum—it was merely the latest chapter in a pattern of reckless entitlement that defined Ukraine’s political class long before he took office. To understand it, we have to go back to 2016, when Ukrainian officials blatantly interfered in the U.S. election, attacking Trump in a way that was not just unprecedented but completely beyond the norms of international relations. It’s one thing for a foreign power to quietly prefer one candidate over another—but for a small, dependent country to openly wage political warfare against the leading contender in a U.S. presidential race was madness.
Their prime minister publicly denounced Trump, claiming he “challenged the very values of the free world.” Ukraine’s Interior Minister went even further, calling Trump a “dangerous misfit” who was “dangerous both for Ukraine and for the United States to the same extent.” Their ambassador to Washington launched a blistering op-ed—something virtually unheard of in international diplomacy—and Ukraine’s intelligence services leaked a fabricated ledger to sabotage Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, in an operation that led directly to Manafort’s ouster. Even Ukraine’s equivalent of a CIA director, Valentin Nalyvaichenko, later all but admitted to the interference, stating, “Of course, they all recognize that our [anti-corruption bureau] intervened in the presidential campaign.”
When Trump won anyway in 2016, he let it slide. He wasn’t going to punish Ukraine for backing the wrong horse. Instead, he sought peace—because, as the media and establishment so often overlook, the war in Ukraine didn’t begin in 2022 but in 2014, and it had long been Trump’s ambition to end it. But his hands were tied by the Russia collusion hoax, which effectively criminalized diplomacy with Moscow. Anytime he wanted to do anything, he was met by loud and hysterical screaming from the media, the establishment and Democrats. When the Russian ambassador visited the White House, as is totally customary, the media went apoplectic, accusing Trump of treason. When Trump met Putin in Helsinki in 2018, the hysteria reached off-the-charts proportions. Putin had given Trump a soccer ball from that year’s World Cup for Trump’s 12-year-old son, and the media claimed it may have been a listening device.
Trump was given no room to maneuver. Instead of pursuing peace, he was forced to arm Ukraine—a step even Obama had refused to take. Then came the impeachment hoax, with Zelensky at its center, making matters infinitely worse. Any attempt at serious negotiations—any engagement with Russia, any acknowledgment that peace requires concessions—would have been seized upon as proof that Trump was a traitor. The very idea of compromise was framed as “selling out” Ukraine, the same false charge leveled against Trump in the first place. Wounded by the impeachment hoax, Trump was hobbled, and then came Biden. With him, Zelensky got everything he wanted—billions in weapons and reckless escalations that led directly to war.
For years we were told that NATO entry had nothing to do with the outbreak of the wider war in 2022, but now even the NATO chief admits NATO expansion was key to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In fact, Biden and his team of inept and corrupt comrades had all but promised Ukraine NATO entry in the lead-up to the 2022 war. Biden held out NATO membership to Ukraine in December 2021, as did his secretary of state, Antony Blinken. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin went even further, saying the door was open to Ukraine for NATO membership during an October 2021 trip to Ukraine. And let’s not forget that Biden’s national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, was one of the chief architects of the Russia collusion hoax, which directly impeded Trump from being able to do anything during his first term.
Yet even as Biden and his team recklessly escalated tensions, Zelensky remained oblivious to the risks, convinced that the West’s blank check would never bounce. When the war exploded into a full-scale conflict in 2022, the U.S. poured hundreds of billions into Ukraine, fueling the fight with no clear strategy or exit plan. Zelensky had one job: to prevent the war or, failing that, to end it as quickly as possible. Instead, he sold his country off—to Western cold warriors who saw Ukraine as a pawn, to proxy war zealots determined to prolong the fight, and to domestic grifters gorging on American largesse. When a real chance for peace emerged early in the war, he didn’t seize it. He threw it away at the command of Boris Johnson and Joe Biden, dragging Ukraine even deeper into a war that should never have happened.
As former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder—one of the last of the old-guard Western leaders—later revealed, he had been mediating the Istanbul peace talks in April 2022. Ukraine and Russia had largely reached an agreement—until Johnson and Biden stepped in and told Zelensky to walk away. He obeyed, choosing war over peace at the command of those who had their own agendas—agendas that had nothing to do with the lives or deaths of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. Yet even as public support waned and the global political landscape shifted, Zelensky refused to adapt—convinced that the money, weapons, and political backing would never stop flowing.
In September 2024, Zelensky came to the United States, and campaigned in Pennsylvania for Kamala Harris, completely oblivious to the possibility that she might lose. While in the United States, he also gave an interview to The New Yorker, making his feelings about Trump and JD Vance clear. Dismissing Trump outright, he claimed, “My feeling is that Trump doesn’t really know how to stop the war, even if he might think he knows how.” He was just as condescending toward Vance, calling him “too radical” and adding, “I don’t take Vance’s words seriously.” He even suggested that Vance needed to be educated by Jewish Americans, claiming they were “a strong power base in the United States.”
Those are hardly the words of a leader capable of navigating peace talks, adapting to shifting political winds, or showing even a trace of gratitude toward the American taxpayers who bankrolled his war. Instead of adjusting, Zelensky doubled down on his arrogance, blind to the fact that the very people he mocked might soon be the ones calling the shots. Despite his endless missteps, poor political acumen, and habit of backing the wrong horse, Zelensky kept getting last chances.
Shortly after Trump’s inauguration, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent visited Kiev to discuss financial matters. Zelensky’s response was more arrogance, refusing to agree to an arrangement to at least partly repay America’s colossal expenditures on Ukraine. And let’s not forget: U.S. taxpayers weren’t just funding the war effort. They were covering 90% of Ukraine’s media, paying Ukrainian pensions, and subsidizing their civil service. It wasn’t just about weapons—it was about propping up an entire state. Zelensky had yet another chance to reset when he met Vance in Munich last week. He failed again. No humility, no recalibration—just the same tired routine. Munich was likely the moment Trump and Vance concluded that as long as Zelensky remained in power, a peace deal was impossible. And how did he respond? By lashing out. Within a day of Munich, he was claiming that Trump “lives in a disinformation space,” only further cementing his own irrelevance.
For years, Zelensky behaved like a spoiled child indulged by weak-willed caretakers. Under Biden, no demand was too excessive, no tantrum too outrageous. When Trump arrived, he never adjusted and never recalibrated. And now the indulgence is over. The adults are back. Trump made that unmistakable in a post yesterday on Truth Social, calling Zelensky what he is: a dictator. The media, Democrats, and European elites are in hysterics—but the truth is finally out. That which was once unsayable has now been said. For years, Zelensky wrapped himself in the language of democracy while shutting down opposition parties, silencing independent media, and, worst of all, canceling elections outright. That isn’t democracy—it’s dictatorship. The charade is over. And unless Zelensky undergoes a complete and immediate transformation, the war will end without him. One way or another, it is coming to a close. The show is over.
“The land that is now Ukraine has always been a space where competing national myths collided. And historically, these clashes ended in bloodshed..”
• Ukraine, Russia, and the West’s Fatal Miscalculation (Lukyanov)
It’s always easy to feel prescient in hindsight. I recall conversations from 15 or 20 years ago with Western interlocutors – who are now from unfriendly nations – on NATO expansion. The discussions always began in a relatively solemn manner. From our side, we politely asked, why are you doing this? The bloc was creeping ever closer to Russia’s borders, despite assurances that it was not an anti-Russian project. Their response was equally polite: What are you talking about? This is not directed against Russia. You should welcome having stable, democratic neighbors under NATO’s watchful eye. After an hour, especially in informal settings, the real opinions began to surface. We warned, if you keep pushing, you’ll eventually reach Ukraine – and that is impossible. That is the red line. The response? Come on! You objected to Poland and Hungary, and then you accepted it.
You were angry about the Baltics, and nothing happened. What’s the difference with Ukraine? You’ll get used to it just like before. Our objections – “No, you don’t understand! Ukraine is entirely different! This will not be the same; this will end badly!” – were met with amused smiles and condescending nods. We understand your concerns, but don’t worry, we’ll handle it, their expressions seemed to say.We were right. They were wrong. But that fact does not make today’s reality any easier. The drive to pull Ukraine into NATO – an irresistible prize for the Atlantic bloc – was not some last-minute maneuver. US State Department documents from the 1990s show that Ukraine’s future membership in NATO was discussed even as the Soviet Union collapsed. It was not an immediate goal, but it was a logical consequence of the West’s Cold War victory. Any objections that contradicted this logic were dismissed outright.
The geostrategic miscalculations and arrogance that defined the so-called liberal world order are one thing. But what is more interesting is why Ukraine actually turned out to be very different. Why did those for whom Ukraine was just another chess piece in a grand geopolitical game fail to understand its unique position? Or did they understand but simply not care? One interpretation is that the Ukrainian question is inseparable from the Russian question. The two are intertwined in a web of history, geography, religion, culture, and mythology. The struggle between inextricable symbiosis and desperate separation is not a contradiction – it is a dialectic. Every attempt to define one without the other results in instability. And each time outsiders tried to manipulate this balance for their own ends, the result was disastrous.
Western strategists have long obsessed over the Russian question, always looking for ways to minimize Moscow’s influence. The collapse of the USSR presented a unique opportunity to contain Russia’s resurgence. What followed was an attempt to reshape Eastern Europe to the West’s advantage, with no regard for the consequences. All nation-building is a kind of fantasy – a process of self-invention. The land that is now Ukraine has always been a space where competing national myths collided. And historically, these clashes ended in bloodshed. Each time, the conflict resulted in a temporary balance, which lasted for a historical cycle before collapsing again.
What we are witnessing today is simply history repeating itself, but at an accelerated pace. Three decades after the emergence of modern Russia and Ukraine, we are reliving a condensed version of centuries of rivalry and realignment. For years after 2014, Russia tried to convince the West that its perception of Ukraine was not a product of propaganda but rather a fundamentally different cultural and historical experience. Ukraine was not just another country that could be absorbed into NATO without consequence. But those arguments were brushed aside. Western officials would nod sympathetically, but their expressions made it clear: this is just another case of Russian imperial nostalgia. You’ll get over it.
The real tragedy is that this conflict was always going to be fought in Ukraine. Many had hoped to avoid direct military confrontation. Perhaps that would have been possible if the entire global system had not fallen into disorder. This war is not simply about Ukraine or even about Russia – it is the result of the broader collapse of the liberal world order.
“..huge increases in defense funding, reaching 326 billion in 2024, after a 31% increase compared to 2023, it is expected that by 2026, through the European defense coordination system, the annual amount will reach 614 billion euros, with a tendency to rise..”
• EU “Leaders” Want To Save The Multi-Million Dollar Military Jackpot (Dionísio)
It’s really like this: the children went to Eurodisney in Paris, and the adults went to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The comparison may seem exaggerated, but it’s not, because the big question that arises from this European “leaders’” attitude is this: to what extent is the resistance to the diplomatic process initiated between the U.S. and the Russian Federation merely a diversion, a circus, aimed at once again justifying the massive military investments announced, freezing the conflict situation and the underlying tension, as well as saving face for the European “leaders”? In the first meeting, Macron summoned the most important EU heavyweights. France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Poland, the Netherlands, Denmark (because of Greenland?), and the two appendages António Costa and Von Der Leyen.
The results, as we know, were classified in the national press as “disappointing,” as these people failed to reach a consensus. Not convinced, Macron, in a second meeting, summoned more secondary states, but, except Belgium, states with some proximity to the Russian Federation, whether geographical, cultural, or economic. The chosen ones were Norway, Canada, the Baltic States, the Czech Republic, Greece, Finland, Romania, Sweden, and Belgium. Portugal was left out and placed at the same level as Malta, Cyprus, Ireland, Slovenia, and Croatia. Slovakia and Hungary don’t count for these things. Macron would have returned with a third wave of third-tier “European” states if he had been successful. In my opinion, this was not an outright attempt to sabotage the peace process or the negotiations between two direct competitors, one of them a declared enemy, the other still the commander of this great Western ship.
It’s much more than that, in a web of objectives ranging from personal salvation to political salvation, as instruments to save an entire dynamic of interests associated with the Ukrainian conflict, which did not disappear with Trump’s election. For three years, these “leaders” sold the idea that everything was about a “brutal, large-scale, and unprovoked invasion” of Ukraine by the Russian Federation; the West, led by the U.S., had no responsibility or provocation in this “invasion”; the “invasion” was solely the responsibility of a “terrible dictator” named Vladimir Putin; an “isolated” and “cornered” Putin, who found a decisive, united, and determined response from the West. Even today, against all evidence, Zelensky says that Trump wants to remove Russia from “international isolation,” not realizing that, with such discourse, he himself alienates the international relations of the country he tyrannizes.
The Russian threat perpetuation logic, coupled with the inability to provide Ukraine with the weapons it needed, built, in the media space, the guillotine placed over our heads, justifying the increase in military spending, reflected, for example, in the European proposal to use Multiannual European funds to establish a true military-industrial complex, contradicting rules that were once considered stable and based on the idea that EU structural funds were intended for cohesion, development, and European construction. The jackpot resulting from this process of psychological escalation is in the trillions of euros and represents the largest increase in military investment since World War II, in an economic space in deep crisis, politically, culturally, and in terms of identity.
If a few months ago Von Der Leyen had already predicted huge increases in defense funding, reaching 326 billion in 2024, after a 31% increase compared to 2023, it is expected that by 2026, through the European defense coordination system, the annual amount will reach 614 billion euros, with a tendency to rise. We are only talking about the European Union, which allocates about one trillion euros to structural funds, that is, just over 30% of the amount expected to be spent annually on defense, but for 7 years. The EU intends to spend, each year, just on defense, almost the same as it spends on development and cohesion in 7 years, or 3 or 4 times more than it spends on the European Social Fund, which deals with inequality and combating poverty. This happens in the context of growing economic austerity, declining living conditions for people, and a drop in European development standards.
Having been pushed aside, Von Der Leyen, after the meeting with Peter Hegseth in Brussels, now appears to give proof of life by announcing a “massive increase in defense spending“, foreseeing changes in bureaucratic rules to facilitate blatant waste. As if shouting, “Mr. Trump, look at me, I’ll buy you lots of weapons.” No wonder the WSJ reports an increase in the value of shares linked to the European defense sector, following talks on increasing military spending within NATO. It is, therefore, easy to see what is behind all this emergency from Macron.
To understand the gravity of the situation, the madness that guides the thoughts and perceptions of these people, and the miserable role they play, Annalena Baerbock gave us a glimpse of what goes on in their sick minds by announcing “an unprecedented aid package” to Ukraine, worth 700 billion euros! To kill and die, they apply the same amount that these people approved for the entire European Union as a Covid-19 recovery instrument for 5 years!
The west may have rewritten (WWII) history, Russia has not.
• Loathsome Heirs of Fascism Will Face Inevitable Retribution (Medvedev)
February 23 isn’t just another day – it symbolizes our collective memory, glory, and pride, and stands as a testament to our unwavering belief in ultimate victory. This year, its meaning deepens as we honor it during the Year of the Defender of the Fatherland. We will never forget the heroes of past generations. Their legacy guides us, inspiring us to live by their example. The stirring words of the great commander Alexander Suvorov – ”We will forever serve Russia with faith and truth, shaming our enemies” – beat in every heart. Our nation has learned the hard art of winning through trials that tested us beyond measure. As new challenges arise, our duty is clear: to confront every threat head-on, channeling all our strength in defense of our homeland.
Tomorrow marks three years since our special military operation began – a bold step taken after crossing a point of no return against what we now call the “collective West.” It was our only way to safeguard our country and its citizens, pushing our adversaries back from our borders. History has proven this tough decision was not only necessary, but the only path forward. The Russian people have united to stand against a ruthless enemy fueled by foreign weapons and money. Although the battle against neo-Nazism and its allies is not yet over, its end is near. The enemy will be defeated, and truth will prevail.
Eighty years ago, our nation triumphed over fascism. Today, its loathsome heirs will face inevitable retribution – not in a modern-day Nuremberg, but on the battlefield, where justice is swift, uncompromising, and true. Our foes, gripped by fear and panic, know this all too well. In their desperate rage, they are capable of anything. We cannot allow a global catastrophe. We must crush any revival of Nazism at its roots, preserve our historical legacy, and leave a worthy inheritance for future generations. Above all, our mission is to protect our boundless homeland and do everything possible to secure its prosperity – for our children, our grandchildren, and the brilliant future of Russia!
“..Trump is publicly signalling that he is re-evaluating the evidence of Russian culpability in the run-up to the start of the Special Military Operation in the Ukraine..”
• Starmer Tells Trump To Fight Russia The British Way (Helmer)
When the British Government announced the fabrication that Russia had attacked on British soil with a chemical weapon called Novichok, Keir Starmer, then a Labour Party shadow minister, announced he was sure of the government’s evidence. The attack, Starmer said, “deserves to be condemned by all of us without reservation – without reservation”. The evidence presented in the House of Commons by then-Prime Minister Theresa May was — Starmer told the BBC on March 16, 2018 — “the right conclusion, and for that reason, I think it is very important that we support the action the Prime Minister laid out on Wednesday [March 14, 2018].” May had told parliament “there is no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian State was culpable for the attempted murder of Mr Skripal and his daughter – and for threatening the lives of other British citizens in Salisbury, including Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey.
This represents an unlawful use of force by the Russian State against the United Kingdom. And as I set out on Monday it has taken place against the backdrop of a well-established pattern of Russian State aggression across Europe and beyond. It must therefore be met with a full and robust response – beyond the actions we have already taken since the murder of Mr Litvinenko and to counter this pattern of Russian aggression elsewhere.” Starmer repeated what May said, word for word. The Russian attack on the Skripals, according to Starmer, was “not for the first time. As a lawyer I represented Marina Litvinenko and it was my privilege to bring a case on her behalf against Russia for that atrocious murder ten, eleven years ago now. This is not the first time. It needs to be called out with no ifs, no buts. And we need strong action as set out by the Prime Minister on Wednesday.”
The Marina Litvineko case in the High Court in 2014 had been to press May’s government to go beyond a coroner’s inquest into the cause of the polonium poisoning death of her husband, Alexander Litvinenko, in London in November 2006. Instead, the widow Litvinenko and British officials wanted to close the inquest and instead open a public inquiry so that the case against Russia could be fully publicized, but the MI6 evidence that Litvinenko had planned to buy the polonium from Moscow kept secret.* In fact, Starmer was not one of the lawyers representing Marina Litvinenko in the High Court review of January 21-22, 2014; the judgement was reported on February 11, 2014, here. Starmer’s name is also missing from the list of lawyers representing Mrs Litvinenko in the High Court proceeding six months earlier.
Starmer was more than big-noting himself on the BBC. The docket of Marina Litvinenko’s cases in the High Court reveals Starmer was a liar. Slight reservation! Two ifs!Donald Trump — in March 2018 president for the first time — was more reserved than Starmer. On March 14, Trump told reporters at the White House: “Well, it seems to me – I’m speaking to Theresa May today — it sounds to me like it would be Russia, based on all the evidence they have. I don’t know if they have come to a conclusion…But she’s calling me today…but Theresa May is going to be speaking to me today. It sounds to me like they believe it was Russia, and I would certainly take that finding as fact. As soon as we get the facts straight, if we agree with them, we will condemn Russia or whoever it may be.”
Now prime minister, Starmer will be meeting Trump at the White House later this week, as Trump is publicly signalling that he is re-evaluating the evidence of Russian culpability in the run-up to the start of the Special Military Operation in the Ukraine. The American ifs and buts have begun to count against the unreserved warfighting propaganda by the British. There is also a hint from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, following his talks with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Riyadh on February 18, that the British evidence of Novichok is also being reopened behind closed doors. Rubio was asked by a reporter whether his agreement to restore diplomatic operations with the Russians meant “that you consider the Skripal case or the Crimea annexation to be closed or no longer issues? Because I think – you mentioned Keir Starmer is going to be in Washington next week. I can imagine that the Brits won’t be particularly pleased by that.”
Rubio hesitated over how to answer. “Yeah, again, I’m not – yeah, I’m not going to negotiate or talk through every element of the disruptions that exists – or have existed in our diplomatic relations and the mechanics of it. Suffice to say that President Trump has pledged and intends to keep his promise to do everything he can to bring an end to this conflict. We cannot do that unless we have at least some normalcy in the way our diplomatic missions operate in Moscow and in Washington, D.C…we’re going to work with them to see what’s possible within that context.”
The fact that I have to commit to an audit being done in four years is bad enough. The Pentagon should be able to pass a budget right now..”
• Democrats Reject Decades of Policy As They Fight Hegseth’s Pentagon Cuts (JTN)
Amid the war on terror and the many military conflicts of the past two decades, Democrats were often critics of foreign adventurism and military spending, pointing to the bloated Pentagon budget as an obvious target for cuts to balance the budget. Now that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered a sweeping budget review and the implementation of those cuts, Democrats — determined to obstruct the Trump agenda — are suddenly livid and sound like Bush-era Republicans warning of national security failures should the Defense Department lose funding.The fiscal year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act approved $883.7 billion in funding for discretionary defense purposes. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, however, has reportedly ordered the Pentagon to plan for an 8% budget cut every year for five years, according to The Washington Post, which cited an internal memo and “officials familiar with the matter.”
“To achieve our mandate from President Trump, we are guided by his priorities including securing our borders, building the Iron Dome for America, and ending radical and wasteful government DEI programs and preferencing,” acting Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Salesses said Wednesday. Attempting to combat media narratives, Hegseth has insisted that he is merely moving money in the Pentagon’s budget to other internal priorities and that such a move did not constitute a cut at all. As the Pentagon plans to allocate funding to other projects, it is unlikely that the shifts would directly impact the national budget. In a public video statement, Hegseth on Thursday urged the public to take media stories with a “grain of salt,” insisting that the media has a “different agenda.”
Hegseth has sought to free up funds in the budget this year to instead invest in Trump-favored projects like an American Iron Dome. That money comes from the already-approved FY2026 budget and totals around $50 billion, roughly 8% of that budget. He did not directly address the reports of an 8% cut each year for five years, but merely the reallocation of the $50 billion within the existing budget. Hegseth confirmed that the Department of Government Efficiency was working with the Pentagon and that he had afforded their staff “broad access” to review the department, with a focus on “headquarters, and fat, and redundancies, and topline stuff.”“The media wants to call these exclusive cuts, but it’s completely the opposite,” he said. “It’s not a cut, it’s refocusing and reinvesting” existing funds toward Trump’s priorities and away from Biden-era social programs.
Prior to the announcement, Hegseth highlighted the Pentagon’s inability to pass an audit and its history of financial vagueness. “The fact that I have to commit to an audit being done in four years is bad enough. The Pentagon should be able to pass a budget right now,” he told Fox News earlier this month. “When we spend dollars, we need to know where they’re going and why. That’s simple accounting. Mainline Democrats did an about face from their decades long opposition to military spending, and were quick to criticize the prospect of a reduced defense budget and now warn of national security failures as they wage war against DOGE and its sweeping cuts to the federal headcount.
“These types of hasty, indiscriminate budget cuts would betray our military forces and their families and make America less safe. I’m all for cutting programs that don’t work, but this proposal is deeply misguided. Secretary Hegseth’s rushed, arbitrary strategy would have negative impacts on our security, economy, and industrial base,” said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I. The cuts “will have a dramatic, deleterious & damaging effect on our readiness & preparedness for the threats that are only increasing around the world,” Sen. Dick Blumenthal, D-Conn., said on CNN. Blumenthal is notorious for having been accused of “stolen valor”: repeatedly claiming to have served in Vietnam. That story fell apart and in 2010 Blumenthal apologized for “misspeaking.” Retired Lt. Gen. and CNN analyst Mark Hertling fumed over the plans, calling them “exponentially worse than sequestration that crippled the military in 2011.”
“If Trump wants to change the name of Canada in the U.S. Geographic Names System, Google will have NO CHOICE but to run with it!”
• Donald Trump Could Pull the Funniest, Most Evil Prank EVER on Canada! (Pinsker)
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.” —William “Billy Boy” Shakespeare With all due respect to the Bard, Juliet was absolutely, completely wrong with the aforementioned quote. (But then again, she was a stupid 13-year-old child, which kind of ruins that “romantic” love story.) Turns out, names are incredibly important! Been that way since the Biblical age, when names and titles were Divinely bestowed: Jacob became Israel; Abram became Abraham. Last year, my home in Tampa Bay was flooded by hurricanes Helene and Milton, causing lots of damage (and ruining three of our cars). We would’ve evacuated WAY earlier if the hurricanes had been renamed Satan and Lucifer. I’m not afraid of a Helene or a Milton, but I ain’t sticking around for Hurricane Lucifer.
That’s the power of names. Donald Trump is probably the most adept politician in history at naming things. (Close runner-up is Alexander the Great, but he only named stuff after himself, which got repetitive. Although, one time, he named a city after his horse.) Trump named his movement “MAGA.” He renamed Hillary Clinton “Crooked Hillary.” Joe Biden became “Sleepy Joe.” Nikki Haley became “Birdbrain.” Adam Schiff is “Shifty Schiff.” And Elizabeth Warren, of course, will forever be known as “Pocahontas.” At first, the political press excoriated Trump for “lowering the public discourse” with his “unpresidential” name-calling. (And then they called him “literally Hitler” for the next eight years straight, demonstrating that their objection to name-calling was highly selective.)
But Trump was right. Names are part and parcel of a person’s brand identity, so if you can redefine their name, you can redefine their brand. It’s a clever PR tactic. And it’s worth noting that it took a non-politician like Trump — someone from outside the political establishment — to recognize its utility. As the old expression goes, “Whoever discovered water wasn’t a fish.” Disruptive new ideas almost always come from the outside. And the disruptions keep on coming: The Gulf of Mexico is now the Gulf of America. The Panama Canal may become the American Canal. (Which is an idea I think Trump stole from me, but that’s okay, because I stole the idea from Father Guido Sarducci.) The Gaza Strip will be the new French Riviera.
Then we come to Canada. You know the dealio: “Governor” Trudeau. Our 51st state. Not a real country. Well, a few days ago, the soon-to-be state of Canada beat the United States of America in a little-known sport called “hockey.” (It’s a weird, niche game with sticks, skates, and a puck. Apparently, people play it when it’s too damn icy to try a REAL sport, like football or baseball.) Flushed with a glorious Canuck victory, Governor Trudeau puffed out his chest and whipped out the ol’ Tweeting Machine:
You can’t take our country — and you can’t take our game.
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 21, 2025
I don’t know what that means. Kudos to Canada for winning one (exhibition?) game, but a Canadian team hasn’t won the Stanley Cup since 1993! That’s so long ago, I’m mocking you — and I’m a freaking Dallas Cowboys fan! (Hey, we last won the Super Bowl in 1996. We’re at least 2.5 years better than Canada.) Along with his knack at naming, the other thing we know (and love) about Donald Trump is that he’s one helluva counterpuncher. You come at him with a jab, and Trump will respond with an uppercut, a rabbit punch, brass knuckles, an eyeball gouge, and a swift kick to the family jewels. Trump doesn’t do “proportionate responses.” So we know he’ll be responding to Trudeau. We know he won’t let our northernmost governor get in the last word. The question, then, is how.
And I think I’ve got another really good idea for Trump to steal: In the aftermath of the “Gulf of America,” we’ve learned the official policy of Google Maps: Whenever the U.S. government changes a name in its U.S. Geographic Names System, Google’s policy is to immediately use that name within that country. That’s why Google Maps complied so quickly, adopting the new name of “Gulf of America” for all U.S.-based users. You know what this means, right? If Trump wants to change the name of Canada in the U.S. Geographic Names System, Google will have NO CHOICE but to run with it! This is a target-rich opportunity for mischief! Trump could rename Canada “The 51st State.” Or “The No Stanley Cup Place.” Or “Where America Stores Our Zamboni Equipment.” But I’m kind of partial to Homer Simpson’s name for Canada:
Kory
https://twitter.com/i/status/1893550581215883431
Trust
A show of absolute tolerance and purrsistence in earning a kitten's trust pic.twitter.com/JieNdx4N5A
— Posts Of Cats (@PostsOfCats) February 22, 2025
Paddy
Around 10,000 ducks are sent to eat insects in a rice paddy after harvest in Thailand… pic.twitter.com/WY5IP50y4j
— Nature is Amazing ☘️ (@AMAZlNGNATURE) February 21, 2025
Condor
The size of an Andean Condor
— Science girl (@gunsnrosesgirl3) February 22, 2025
Eagles
Eagle’s partner returns with food for her
pic.twitter.com/2xfAHg6gXY— Science girl (@gunsnrosesgirl3) February 23, 2025
Tiger
Siberian Tigers are symbols of strength, courage, and beauty; let’s protect them for future generations. pic.twitter.com/s8CHZnFljs
— Gabriele Corno (@Gabriele_Corno) February 22, 2025
Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.
Home › Forums › Debt Rattle February 24 2025