Georgia O’Keeffe Sunflower, New Mexico I 1935
Ursulahttps://twitter.com/eugyppius1/status/1958188510344630425
Sasha Stone on Substack writes: "The hardest work Newsom has ever done is slicking back his hair for a photo op. He’s survived nothing. He’s built nothing. He stands for nothing. And in that way, he’s the perfect representative for today’s Democratic Party."
— James Howard Kunstler (@Jhkunstler) August 21, 2025
https://twitter.com/PapiTrumpo/status/1958290851228184763
Lutnick
It’s official. We have finalized our historic U.S.–EU Framework Agreement on Reciprocal, Fair, and Balanced trade. The EU has agreed to open its $20 Trillion market. The second largest in the world behind the great USA
This deal:
➡️ Eliminates EU tariffs on all U.S. industrial…— Howard Lutnick (@howardlutnick) August 21, 2025
Slavery
https://twitter.com/PapiTrumpo/status/1958212350802026523
JGB
Japan’s 30-year bond yield has spiked to 3.10% – the highest level on record. A preview of what’s coming for the US if we don’t get our deficit/debt spiral under control. The chickens eventually come home to roost. pic.twitter.com/RsF7KqzHTG
— Charlie Bilello (@charliebilello) August 21, 2025
https://twitter.com/Megatron_ron/status/1958477133963030829
This concerns the case where the Trump Organization supposedly defrauded banks that already did their due diligence, by overestimating the value of its assets to get better loans. In the immortal words of Judge Arthur Engeron: “..engaged in frauds that “leap off the page and shock the conscience…”
Not sure it is what it seems. Trump calls it a complete victory, perfect even, but from what I can see the appeals court only struck down the “excessive penalty”. The rest appears to stand. Perhaps best illustrated by the fact that Letitia James’s office say they “won’t be dropping the case”. Of coure, Letitia shouldn’t have an office at all anymore, anymore than Engeron should be a judge.
• Appeals Court Tosses Trump’s $454 Million Civil Fraud Judgement (ZH)
A New York appeals court has tossed out a $454 million civil fraud judgement handed down last year against Donald Trump, his family, and his company. While the Appellate Division’s First Department upheld the ruling, it found that the $454 million penalty was excessive and at odds with the Eighth Amendment. “The documentary evidence supports Supreme Court’s conclusion that the Attorney General made a prima facie showing that each defendant participated in the fraudulent scheme,” reads the opinion. “The trial record is also replete with evidence supporting the court’s determination that the individual defendants had the requisite intent to defraud, a necessary element of each Penal Law claim.” The decision comes after New York Attorney General Letitia James’s office asked an appeals court last August to uphold the $454 million civil fraud judgment against Trump.
The appellate judges, however, said of the judgement; “while harm certainly occurred, it was not the cataclysmic harm that can justify a nearly half billion-dollar award to the State.” In response to the decision, President Trump claimed ‘TOTAL VICTORY in the FAKE New York State Attorney General Letitia James Case!” “The amount, including Interest and Penalties, was over $550 Million Dollars. It was a Political Witch Hunt, in a business sense, the likes of which no one has ever seen before. This was a Case of Election Interference by the City and State trying to show, illegally, that I did things that were wrong when, in fact, everything I did was absolutely CORRECT and, even, PERFECT,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. The case can now be appealed by either side to the state’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals.
“Today’s ruling by the New York appeals court is a resounding victory for President Trump and his company,” Trump’s former personal attorney, Alina Habba, said in response. “The court struck down the outrageous and unlawful $464 million penalty, confirming what we have said from the beginning: the Attorney General’s case was politically motivated, legally baseless, and grossly excessive.” Following a three-month civil trial last year, Judge Arthur Engoron found Trump liable for inflating his net worth to secure better business deals, writing in his decision that Trump and his co-defendants engaged in frauds that “leap off the page and shock the conscience,” adding “Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological. They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again.”
Trump has long claimed that the case was politically motivated, saying “I’ve been persecuted by someone running for office,” referring to NY Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the case – and is currently under investigation for her own real estate fraud. In his February decision, Engoron temporarily barred Trump and his family from leading New York-based companies, along with the $454 million fine. With interest, the penalty was closer to half-a-billion dollars. Trump denied all wrongdoing – arguing that the alleged victims in the case were sophisticated banks who were happy to go into business with the Trump Organization, and profited from the deals. Meanwhile, Trump’s lawyers argued that James violated the statue of limitations, misapplied the relevant law, and encouraged the excessive penalty.
BREAKING: New York’s appeals court has thrown out the unprecedented, politically-motivated $465 million civil penalty that Letitia James tried to hit Trump with in 2024.
They tried to impeach him, bankrupt him, imprison him, and assassinate him. They failed. pic.twitter.com/VFZ7GqZYZx
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) August 21, 2025
“Vance said he was “more soft-spoken than you would necessarily expect” from the way he’s portrayed by Western media.”
• Putin ‘Looks Out’ For Russia’s Interests – Vance (RT)
Russian President Vladimir Putin is “looking out for the interests” of his country, US Vice President J.D. Vance has said. According to Vance, both Putin and his US counterpart Donald Trump prioritize their nations’ interests, which explains the respect each has for the other. Vance made the remarks following Trump’s meeting with Putin last week in Alaska and a phone call between the two on Monday, during talks with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky and EU leaders. Trump called the talks “productive” and said a settlement of the Ukraine conflict was now more realistic. Asked to describe Putin on Laura Ingraham’s show on Wednesday, Vance said he was “more soft-spoken than you would necessarily expect” from the way he’s portrayed by Western media.
“He’s very deliberate. He’s very careful. And I think fundamentally he’s a person who looks out for the interest – as he sees it – of Russia,” Vance said. He added that “while [Putin and Trump] often disagree about issues,” the US president is willing to work with the Russian leader on achieving a Ukraine settlement, which Vance called “an important goal for America.” On Monday, Trump said he had started arrangements for a one-on-one meeting between Putin and Zelensky, to be followed by a trilateral summit. Moscow has not confirmed any plans for the meetings, but proposed to elevate the level of heads of delegations at talks with Ukraine.
Putin has not ruled out meeting with Zelensky but has insisted it must follow tangible progress in negotiations. He has also questioned Zelensky’s legitimacy, noting that his presidential term has expired and warning that any agreement he signs could be overturned. Commenting on a potential Putin-Zelensky meeting, Vance said he and Trump both support it and believe it should happen even if not all issues are resolved beforehand. He described Ukraine’s call for post-conflict security guarantees and Russia’s demand that Kiev recognize the current realities on the ground as the main obstacles in negotiations.
This is what you get when you appease the piano dick in the Oval Office; nonsensical drivel. You can either let him talk, or you can have peace. Can’t have both.
• Zelensky Says Meeting With Putin ‘Definitely Not In Moscow’ (RT)
Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has ruled out meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, saying he prefers talks to be held in a “neutral” part of Europe. Speculation about a possible Putin-Zelensky meeting arose after the Russian president met with his US counterpart, Donald Trump, last week in Alaska. Trump later met with Zelensky and EU leaders, followed by a 40-minute call with Putin, and posted on Truth Social that he had “begun the arrangements for a meeting [between Putin and Zelensky] at a location to be determined.” Media reports claimed Putin had suggested Moscow as a venue. “There can definitely be no meeting in Moscow,” Zelensky told reporters on Thursday, without elaborating. He said he wants the US to coordinate the negotiations with Russia, but also would like Kiev’s European allies involved.
“I would like Europe to be present as well. The negotiations must take place in a neutral part of Europe,” he said, suggesting Austria, Türkiye, and Switzerland as options. The Kremlin has not confirmed any plans for a Putin-Zelensky meeting, but Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Wednesday that Moscow was ready to raise the status of its delegation-level peace negotiations with Ukraine. Lavrov said Putin raised the idea after his call with Trump. Putin has not ruled out meeting Zelensky but has insisted that it could only come after the negotiation process has produced tangible progress. Moscow has also questioned Zelensky’s legitimacy, noting his term as president has expired and warning any deals he signs could be overturned by his successor.
Trump said this week he preferred that Putin and Zelensky meet before a potential three-way summit be held. He called his talks with Putin in Alaska “very productive” and said a settlement was now more realistic. Media reports have claimed Washington is planning a three-way summit between Putin, Trump, and Zelensky in Hungary. Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto confirmed on Thursday that Budapest would be a realistic venue, including for a potential one-on-one between Putin and Zelensky, arguing Hungary is the only Western country that has maintained a “fair, mutually respectful” relationship with all sides. Zelensky, however, dismissed Hungary as a venue, citing its efforts to block EU military aid to Ukraine.
“Putin agreed to European and U.S. security guarantees..”
He agreed there would/could be some. He never agreed to any specific ones.
“Lavrov’s remarks were a potent sign that Moscow’s maximalist demands in the war haven’t shifted despite a surge in diplomatic engagement in recent days.”
• Russia Insists It Has Veto Power Over Any ‘Security Guarantees’ (ZH)
Now nearly a week out from last Friday’s historic Trump-Putin summit in Alaska, the White House has had to temper its positive predictions on the peace process, after prematurely touting that a Putin and Zelensky bilateral meeting was on the horizon. By Wednesday the Kremlin had made it clear this is not yet the case. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov issued some non-committal statements, watering down what appeared an already vague commitment. A future direct meeting with the Ukrainian leader – a president which Moscow previously dubbed illegitimate – would have to be prepared “gradually… starting with the expert level and thereafter going through all the required steps.”
A separate Russian official has stated that “it shouldn’t be a meeting for the sake of a meeting” – highlighting that despite Trump’s strong diplomatic efforts, Russia remains ‘open’ but doesn’t consider the warring sides to have bridged key major gaps on peace terms just yet. On Thursday The Wall Street Journal underscored that there’s yet another key divide – the question of future security guarantees and how they will be monitored or implemented: Russia warned on Wednesday that it should effectively hold veto power over any action to assist Ukraine after a peace deal is reached, rendering planned Western security guarantees for Kyiv moot and delivering a setback to negotiations championed by President Trump.
…Lavrov’s insistence that Russia must have a say in how any security guarantees for Ukraine would be enacted contradicted the Trump administration’s assertion that Putin agreed to European and U.S. security guarantees at the Alaska summit on Friday. Lavrov’s remarks were a potent sign that Moscow’s maximalist demands in the war haven’t shifted despite a surge in diplomatic engagement in recent days. Western security assurances to deter against future Russian invasions are key to getting Ukraine to sign on to a peace deal. Russia has never wavered on insisting that NATO or Western forces never be allowed to patrol or have a presence in Ukraine. Moscow’s war justification from the beginning has been focused on the question of NATO expansion, and demanding permanent Ukrainian neutrality.
Strangely, while President Trump has this week assured Russia of ‘no US boots on the ground’ – the White House spokesperson at the same time suggested there could be some kind of pledged US or Western air support as part of future security guarantees. But the messaging has been contradictory as at the same time Trump has been pledging ‘minimal’ American involvement in any future security guarantees for Ukraine. Moscow will likely present the targeted Mukachevo plant as military or ‘dual use’ in nature… Geopolitical news source Moon of Alabama reacted as follows:
”While Russia is confidently prosecuting the war in Ukraine towards its inevitable end. Meanwhile the ‘West’ is still negotiating with itself about the conditions under which it will have to capitulate. Discussions continue about ‘security guarantees’ for Ukraine even as the only serious ones are those that Russia is willing to give. The confused arguments about ‘guarantees’ are reflected in the reports of them. Consider this nonsense: “A security guarantee could encompass a wide range of issues. In return for Russia ending its invasion, a security pact could include a pledge of U.S. air support for any European-led operations should Russian troops resume their assault.”
If Russia ends the war NATO-like ‘security guarantees’ are to be given to Ukraine as a reward?Indeed, it’s as if Trump and his top officials still don’t understand the core problems, or at least purposefully ignore what remain the root causes to this war. Trump wants to see more rapid momentum and engagement come out of the Alaska summit, hoping for a Putin-Zelensky summit within days or weeks. But that’s very unlikely to happen, also given Zelensky – with the encouragement of the more hawkish European allies – has still not offered substantive compromise. He reportedly isn’t even willing to lift restrictions on the use of the Russian language in public discourse or media.
They will forever try to push against, and beyond, the red lines.
• Kiev’s European Backers Want F-35 ‘Security Guarantee‘ – The Times (RT)
Kiev’s Western European backers have asked the US to deploy F-35 jets to Romania as “security guarantees” to help end the Ukraine conflict, The Times reported on Wednesday. In addition, they reportedly want Washington to supply Kiev with Patriot and NASAMS interceptor missiles, as well as “permission to fly spy planes over the Black Sea.” US President Donald Trump on Tuesday told Fox News that he had ruled out deploying American troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal with Russia but that air support was possible. “They are willing to put people on the ground. We’re willing to help them with things, especially, probably… by air,” he said.
Senior Western European and US military chiefs have since met in Washington to discuss the “logistics” of a security package, The Times wrote. NATO already runs what the paper described as “policing missions” over the Black Sea from the Mihail Kogalniceanu airbase in Romania, its largest European airbase. The facility was used by US forces during their invasion of Iraq and would most likely serve as a base for the F-35s, The Times wrote. European NATO countries also reportedly want guarantees that they would have access to US satellite and intelligence data, according to the newspaper.
Moscow has previously warned that any airfields, in any country, will be legitimate targets if they host jets participating in combat missions against Russian troops involved in the Ukraine conflict. Russia has also repeatedly warned that it will consider any NATO troops deployed in Ukraine as valid military targets – whether they are sent under the guise of “peacekeepers” or otherwise. Any such deployment risks a direct clash and “uncontrollable escalation” between Russia and the West, Moscow has said.
“..there are millions of people in the world who are ready to fight against Russia, especially given the financial compensation…This is realistic,” he said.”
• Ukraine Could Recruit ‘Millions’ of Foreigners – MP (RT)
Ukraine should recruit for its military “millions” of foreigners willing to fight against Russia, lawmaker Aleksey Goncharenko has proposed. The MP was addressing Kiev’s frontline manpower crisis and the harsh ongoing conscription campaign, which he likened to the Nazi Gestapo. Speaking at a Ukrainian parliamentary session on Wednesday, Goncharenko, a member of the European Solidarity party led by former Ukrainian President Pyotr Poroshenko, voiced outrage over the brutality of press gangs and proposed that Kiev could sidestep the issue by relying on foreign fighters. “We need to engage in foreign recruitment – there are millions of people in the world who are ready to fight against Russia, especially given the financial compensation…This is realistic,” he said.
Goncharenko earlier proposed dismantling Ukraine’s current military-managed recruitment system and replacing it with a civilian-run one. “Instead of all this, there are the shameful Territorial Recruitment Centers, which are already behaving just like the Gestapo,” he said, referring to the secret police of Nazi Germany that was notorious for its numerous atrocities. “This cannot continue. It must be immediately corrected, because otherwise, if the people stop believing in the state, we will lose the state,” he added. Russia has warned that foreign mercenaries fighting for Ukraine are treated as “legitimate targets” and has on numerous occasions struck bases where they have been deployed. In 2024, the Russian Defense Ministry said that more than 13,000 foreign mercenaries have fought on Ukraine’s side since 2022, and that nearly 6,000 had been killed.
Ukraine announced a general mobilization shortly after the start of the conflict, barring most men aged 18 to 60 from leaving the country. In 2024, Kiev lowered the draft age from 27 to 25 and tightened mobilization rules to replenish mounting battlefield losses. The forced conscription campaign has regularly featured violent clashes between draft officers and reluctant recruits, thus triggering discontent in the country. On Wednesday, several media outlets cited what they described as a leaked Ukrainian military index obtained by Russian hackers suggesting more than 1.7 million Ukrainian troops have been killed or declared missing since the start of the conflict.
“He suggested that Ukraine’s refusal to discuss a settlement before receiving security guarantees is intended to preserve what he called the “neo-Nazi, Russophobic regime” in Kiev.”
• Ukraine Not Interested In Peace – Lavrov (RT)
Kiev is openly demonstrating it has no interest in long-term peace with Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said, pointing to recent remarks by Ukrainian officials. Following the summit in Alaska between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump, and subsequent talks in Washington with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky and European leaders, the US administration said a peace deal had become more feasible. The White House described the outcome of the talks as progress, noting there was “a light at the end of the tunnel.” At a press conference on Thursday, Lavrov confirmed that significant progress had been achieved during the Alaska summit. However, he underlined that Ukrainian officials continue to comment on a possible resolution “in a very specific way that shows they are not interested in a sustainable, fair, long-term settlement.”
He pointed to a statement by key Zelensky adviser Mikhail Podoliak, who recently stated that Kiev would acknowledge that some regions are “de facto” lost to Russia. However, once Kiev secures security guarantees it would seek to regain them and demand that the West impose sanctions aimed at weakening Russia and damaging its economy. According to Lavrov, such rhetoric demonstrates that the Ukrainian leadership, encouraged by its Western sponsors, are pursuing goals antithetical to the joint efforts of Trump and Putin to eliminate the root causes of the crisis. Instead of working toward a settlement, Lavrov argued, Kiev and its backers want to aggravate those causes further by forming anti-Russian military alliances. He suggested that Ukraine’s refusal to discuss a settlement before receiving security guarantees is intended to preserve what he called the “neo-Nazi, Russophobic regime” in Kiev.
The minister also accused Kiev’s European sponsors of trying to “disrupt” the peace agenda by ignoring Russia’s interests and demanding security guarantees for a country “that professes neo-Nazi values, grossly violates the rights of national minorities, legislatively tries to exterminate the Russian language in all spheres of life, prohibits the canonical Orthodox Church.” “I hope this recklessness will fail and we will continue to follow the course agreed upon by President Putin and President Trump,” Lavrov said.
“The central lesson of Washington was the EU’s dependence – and its public acceptance of subordination to American leadership. The White House gathering laid bare the infantilization of Western Europe.”
• “Daddy” Trump and Western Europe’s Oath of Allegiance (Bordachev)
American politics has always been part performance, part power play. Domestic and foreign policy alike are wrapped in spectacle, but the drama often conceals deeper realities. This week’s meeting between Donald Trump and Western Europe’s leading politicians in Washington was a vivid example. What looked like theatre – leaders lined up in the Oval Office, each playing their role – carried consequences of genuine strategic weight. The real subject of the summit was not Ukraine. Attempts to resolve that conflict continue, but its outcome will be determined far from Brussels, Paris, or Berlin. The central lesson of Washington was the EU’s dependence – and its public acceptance of subordination to American leadership. The White House gathering laid bare the infantilization of Western Europe.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is said to have previously described Trump as “Daddy,” and the metaphor has stuck. The Europeans behaved as children trying not to provoke a temper: flattering, nodding, adapting themselves to his moods. There were even reports of EU and British officials advising Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky on how to thank the American president, what words to use, even what clothes to wear. Absurd? Perhaps. But this is the political reality of the West today: the EU no longer behaves as a political entity with its own agency. Its leaders perform before Trump in hopes of appeasement. To be fair, Washington has never shown great delicacy in dealing with its allies. From De Gaulle to Schroeder, European leaders have often found their views brushed aside by American presidents. But the context is new.
Facing unprecedented competition with China and with its ability to skim rents from globalization fading, and under pressure from shifting energy and trade patterns, Washington no longer feels compelled to show even symbolic respect for Western Europe. The only alternative for the US would be full-scale self-isolation – a path floated in the last election but one for which Americans remain unprepared. On the contrary, despite its weakness, Europe now represents Washington’s last major platform for maintaining global influence. In the Middle East, even monarchies traditionally dependent on American defense are asserting independence. Across Asia, only Japan and South Korea remain fully loyal, though even they quietly maintain contact with Moscow.
Thus, the Americans must finish what previous administrations began: breaking Western Europe completely to their will. Trump, with his showmanship, has simply made the process more theatrical and humiliating. The Washington meeting crystallized this reality. The leaders of Britain, Germany, France, and Italy – the core of Western Europe – were required to stand on stage and sign a statement endorsing US policy on Ukraine. The heads of the EU and NATO joined in. Each leader searched for his or her own words of submission, and all found them. What looked absurd was in fact deadly serious. It was not about Ukraine’s fate – Kiev is merely a bargaining chip. It was about these European leaders publicly renouncing their autonomy. In practice, it was an oath of allegiance to Washington. From Russia’s perspective, three conclusions follow.
First, the EU and Great Britain cease to exist as independent actors. After the Cold War, it was briefly fashionable to speak of European strategic autonomy. As late as 2003, Germany and France opposed the US invasion of Iraq. Today, such defiance is unimaginable. Western Europe has become an appendage of the United States. Second, Russia’s strategy towards the region must change. For years, Moscow calculated that other European states, though dependent, could still act with partial independence and might support Russian interests under the right circumstances. Indeed, Russia’s most serious clashes with the West occurred when Western unity fractured. That assumption can no longer stand. Western Europe is now firmly absorbed into Washington’s orbit – a cog in a larger American machine. Third, Russia and China must reassess their approach. Beijing still regards the EU as a potential neutral partner in its rivalry with Washington. But the Oval Office spectacle shows this is an illusion. Treating Western Europe as independent risks undermining the strategic interests of both Russia and China. The same applies to India and other BRICS partners who maintain strong ties to states in the region: they, too, must rethink their assumptions.
“Faced with this reality, Western Europe has chosen a strategy of unrestrained flattery. Leaders believe that by praising Trump, they can slip their own disagreements into the conversation.”
• Trump Dominated and Humiliated the EU. Publicly (Lukyanov)
From a theatrical point of view, Monday’s Washington summit between US President Donald Trump and Western Europe’s leaders was a vivid spectacle. Each official played their role, some with greater skill than others. But behind the carefully staged performance, the real story emerged: the region’s inability to act as a political entity in its own right. Contrary to media spin, the meeting was not about Ukraine. Attempts to resolve the crisis continue, but its outcome will ultimately be decided not in Brussels or Berlin, but by non-European powers. The real lesson from Washington lay in the display of Western Europe’s dependence. Every move by these Western European leaders was aimed at one goal: not angering the American president. In the words of NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Trump has become “Daddy” – a figure to be placated with smiles, tributes, and flattery.
Leaders compared notes on how best to manage his moods, even down to reportedly advising Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky on what to wear, what to say, and how to thank him. This might sound absurd. But that is the political reality of the transatlantic relationship. The EU no longer acts with autonomy. Its politics revolve around managing the temper of a man in Washington. Of course, Trump’s personality is unique, but it would be a mistake to reduce the issue to character. The essence is deeper: Western Europe has suddenly realized the scale of its strategic, political and economic dependence on the United States. Put bluntly, the half-continent can do very little without America – even in matters that directly touch its own interests. This dependency did not appear overnight. Ironically, it deepened under Joe Biden.
With his rhetoric of “unprecedented transatlantic solidarity,” the former president made Western Europe carry much of the political and economic burden of the conflict with Russia. The United States reaped the economic benefits, while the costs were shifted to the Old World. Trump has simply made this arrangement overt. He openly treats the Europeans not as partners, but as tools. In his eyes, the EU exists to finance American priorities and later to handle the technical details of a post-settlement Ukraine. Western Europe’s “position” counts for little if it differs from Washington’s. The recent trade talks proved the point: negotiations went America’s way, and his guests accepted it. Faced with this reality, Western Europe has chosen a strategy of unrestrained flattery. Leaders believe that by praising Trump, they can slip their own disagreements into the conversation.
But the approach is self-defeating. Trump regards praise not as persuasion but as recognition of self-evident truth: if you admire me, I must be right. Join me, and keep applauding. Brussels reassures itself that this humiliation is temporary, the product of one unusual leader. When Trump leaves, normality will return. But the illusion will not last. For over two decades – since the presidency of George W. Bush – Washington has been steadily shifting its strategic focus away from Europe. This course has been consistent across parties and presidents. It will not change after Trump. And given the current willingness of EU leaders to grovel, future US presidents will expect no less.
“A close economic and political partnership with Russia, unwanted or not, is indeed the most likely future for whatever is by then left of Ukraine.”
• Ukraine’s Future – A Steppe Corridor – A Neutral, Transit-oriented State (MoA)
While Russia is confidently prosecuting the war in Ukraine towards its inevitable end. Meanwhile the ‘West’ is still negotiating with itself about the conditions under which it will have to capitulate. Discussions continue about ‘security guarantees’ for Ukraine even as the only serious ones are those that Russia is willing to give. The confused arguments about ‘guarantees’ are reflected in the reports of them. Consider this nonsense: “A security guarantee could encompass a wide range of issues. In return for Russia ending its invasion, a security pact could include a pledge of U.S. air support for any European-led operations should Russian troops resume their assault.” If Russia ends the war NATO like ‘security guarantees’ are to be given to Ukraine as a reward? How is that supposed to compute? Russia started this war to prevent a further extension of NATO into Ukraine. Why should it end the fighting if, in consequence, Ukraine would end up as a quasi-member of that pact? All the ‘security guarantees’ talk is just obfuscation of the attempt by some European leaders to prolong the war by further dragging the U.S. into it:
“Days before the [sanctions] deadline expired, Putin invited Witkoff to Moscow and offered a proposal, seen by the White House as sufficient grounds to set up last week’s Alaska summit meeting. There, Putin succeeded in convincing Trump that an immediate ceasefire to allow for complex peace negotiations was not required, allowing Russia to continue its attacks on Ukraine, without the risk of new U.S. sanctions. The move alarmed European leaders, who raced to Washington on Monday to back up Zelensky during a meeting at the White House. After the meeting, they appeared satisfied by Trump’s openness to security guarantees. If Putin does not accept the terms, that could make the Kremlin the obstacle to Trump’s peace deal, insulating Ukraine from having to choose between untenable concessions of territory and inviting Trump’s ire.“
Russia is not going to allow any of this: “[O]n Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov struck a blow at another major part of Trump’s peace effort, downplaying expectations for a swift bilateral meeting with the Ukrainian president, and further blocking the prospects for any deal on security guarantees for Ukraine. He said Russia would only agree to the measures if it had an effective veto over future efforts to defend Kyiv.” Russia will simply stick to its plan: Russia’s conditions to end its war would essentially subvert Ukraine’s sovereignty, neuter its military and seize territory in eastern Ukraine that it has not captured in battle. Moscow wants to also permanently bar Ukraine from NATO and other international groupings and prevent it from hosting foreign troops — terms that would force Ukraine into a close, unwanted economic and political partnership with Russia.
A close economic and political partnership with Russia, unwanted or not, is indeed the most likely future for whatever is by then left of Ukraine. Some Ukrainians, like the former presidential advisor Alexander Arestovich, do understand that: “The key task for Ukraine today in all these Alaskan tales is to preserve political independence in the long term… Ukraine has only one way to preserve it: acknowledging the shared symbolic capital with Russia and Belarus, adopting a neutral status, and building good-neighborly relations with Russia and Belarus while maintaining political independence and the unique role of a “crossroads of worlds”- between Russia and Europe. Economically, the most promising role is that of a “steppe corridor” – between Russia, Central Asia, the South Caucasus, and the EU.
In short, this is about a fundamental shift in project orientation – from a narrow, nationalist one to a broad, transit-oriented one. In a sense, this could be called a “Great Return” – to Ukraine’s natural historical and cultural role. By way of analogy – modern Kazakhstan. … In conclusion, the fundamental challenge for Ukraine lies not in tactical maneuvers but in recognizing the strategic perspective: the necessity of reimagining its role as a neutral, transit-oriented state in order to preserve independence in the emerging geopolitical order.
Tulsi may well be the most effective member of the Trump admin so far.
• DNI Gabbard Reduces Staff 40%, Eliminates $700 Million in IC Spending (CTH)
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has announced a major shift in reducing the role of the Intelligence Community and eliminating the politization of intelligence information. As we have discussed on these pages for several years, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence was created shortly before the Obama administration took power, and subsequently the fledgling organization was weaponized for domestic influence operations. DNI Tulsi Gabbard takes a major step in addressing this problem. In the era shortly after 9/11, the DC national security apparatus was constructed to preserve continuity of government and simultaneously view all Americans as potential threats. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) were created specifically for this purpose. What Barack Obama and Eric Holder did with that new construct was refine the internal targeting mechanisms so that only their ideological opposition became the target of the new national security system.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – On Wednesday, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard announced a long-overdue transformation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to refocus on executing its core national security mission with integrity in the most agile, effective, and efficient way. This will reduce ODNI by over 40% by the end of fiscal year 2025 and save taxpayers over $700 million per year and better enable ODNI to focus on fulfilling its critical role of serving as the central hub for intelligence integration, strategic guidance, and oversight over the Intelligence Community. ODNI was created after the horrific Islamist terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, exposed systemic failures across the Intelligence Community (IC). Its purpose was to integrate intelligence from and provide oversight over all IC elements (currently 18) in order to ensure the intelligence provided to the President and policymakers is timely, accurate, and apolitical.
Unfortunately, two decades later, ODNI has fallen short in fulfilling its mandate. “Over the last 20 years, ODNI has become bloated and inefficient, and the intelligence community is rife with abuse of power, unauthorized leaks of classified intelligence, and politicized weaponization of intelligence,” said DNI Tulsi Gabbard. “ODNI and the IC must make serious changes to fulfill its responsibility to the American people and the U.S. Constitution by focusing on our core mission: find the truth and provide objective, unbiased, timely intelligence to the President and policymakers. Ending the weaponization of intelligence and holding bad actors accountable are essential to begin to earn the American people’s trust which has long been eroded. Under President Trump’s leadership, ODNI 2.0 is the start of a new era focused on serving our country, fulfilling our core national security mission with excellence, always grounded in the U.S. Constitution, and ensuring the safety, security, and freedom of the American people.”
ODNI 2.0 eliminates redundant missions, functions and personnel, and makes critical investments in areas that support the President’s national intelligence priorities, and focuses on rebuilding trust, exposing politicization and weaponization of intelligence, holding bad actors accountable, saving American tax dollars, and focusing on our core mission: protecting the safety, security, and freedom of the American people. Washington DC created the modern national security apparatus immediately and hurriedly after 9/11/01. DHS came along in 2002 and within the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 the ODNI was formed. When Barack Obama and Eric Holder arrived a few years later, those newly formed institutions were viewed as opportunities to create a very specific national security apparatus that would focus almost exclusively against their political opposition.
The preexisting Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Dept of Justice (DOJ) were then repurposed to become two of the four pillars of the domestic national security apparatus. However, this new construct would have a targeting mechanism based on political ideology. The DHS, ODNI, DOJ and FBI became the four pillars of this new institution. Atop these pillars is where you will find the Fourth Branch of Government. We were not sleeping when this happened, we were wide awake. However, we were stunningly distracted by the economic collapse that was taking place in 2006 and 2007 when the engineers behind Obama started to assemble the design. By the time Obama took office in 2009, we sensed something profound was shifting, but we can only see exactly what shifted in the aftermath. The four pillars were put into place, and a new Fourth Branch of Government was quietly created.
As Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard has begun to take down the political surveillance system. Yesterday, it was announced that Tulsi Gabbard fired twenty of the “according to those familiar with the matter” people. Another ten from the group “who spoke on the condition of anonymity.” And seven of the “officials close to the issue.” Her work continues.
https://twitter.com/JesseBWatters/status/1958328737017254066
All kinds of small-town politicians come up with rules and regulations that they insist apply to the entire world.
“..it came as no surprise that the administration stood (and still stands) firm alongside Cupertino in protecting Americans’ rights against British predations — with echoes of 1776.”
• Tulsi Stares Down UK, Scoring Another Big Win for American Consumers (Green)
The United Kingdom has a problem with the U.S.: It’s that pesky Bill of Rights and our refusal to surrender our rights to Britain’s censorship and due-process-busting domestic spying schemes. Enter, stage right: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. I reported earlier this week that 4chan’s notorious internet pranksters hired a couple of big-name law firms, after Britain threatened the American-based company with a £20,000 fine, followed by hefty daily fines, if the group failed to impose Britain’s censorship rules on 4chan’s users everywhere in the world — including in the U.S. 4chan’s representation called the actions of Britain’s Office of Communications (Ofcom) an “illegal campaign of harassment against American technology firms.”
But Britain’s censorious Online “Safety” Act of 2023 isn’t the only foreign threat to American freedoms. They also have their Orwell-inspired Investigatory Powers Act, which pitted His Majesty’s Craptaculent Government up against one of the biggest companies in the world: Apple. Back in February, Britain ordered Apple to create a backdoor in its iPhone operating system, allowing British authorities to snoop on the entire contents of anyone’s iPhone, anywhere in the world — without a warrant, without notification, without nothin’. Arguably worse, under the Investigatory Powers Act, Apple was forbidden to even tell British users that their privacy was compromised by force of law. Apple calls its end-to-end iPhone encryption — that means nobody can see your data but you — Advanced Data Protection (ADP), and they weren’t about to have some Limeys break it for a billion users around the world.
Britain’s hope was that Apple would quietly corrupt user privacy without anyone being the wiser, but rather than destroy user privacy, Apple did what I called “the best wrong thing.” Instead of giving London the key to every iPhone in the world, in February the company warned British users that they would soon lose ADP and their privacy, too. Apple explained that it would no longer offer ADP “to new users and current UK users will eventually need to disable this security feature.” That’s a terrible thing to have to do, but at least UK users weren’t lied to about the security of their cloud and on-device storage. “We are gravely disappointed that the protections provided by ADP will not be available to our customers in the UK,” the company explained, “given the continuing rise of data breaches and other threats to customer privacy. Enhancing the security of cloud storage with end-to-end encryption is more urgent than ever before.”
President Donald Trump and Apple CEO Tim Cook have worked closely together in the past, despite some yuge political differences. So it came as no surprise that the administration stood (and still stands) firm alongside Cupertino in protecting Americans’ rights against British predations — with echoes of 1776. Trump sicced Tulsi on the Brits. Wisely, after months of wrangling behind closed doors, the Brits finally caved. “Neither the U.S. nor U.K. governments have made any formal announcement about the matter,” Apple Insider reported, but “given the secretive way the U.K. has tried to handle the matter, there may not even be any confirmation on that side of the Atlantic.” We don’t yet know what went on between Trump, JD Vance, Gabbard, and their UK counterparts, but we can see the result.
“Over the past few months, I’ve been working closely with our partners in the U.K., alongside POTUS and VPOTUS,” Gabbard posted to X yesterday, “to ensure Americans’ private data remains private and our Constitutional rights and civil liberties are protected.” “As a result, the UK has agreed to drop its mandate for Apple to provide a ‘back door’ that would have enabled access to the protected encrypted data of American citizens and encroached on our civil liberties.” With that out of the way, Apple might be able to re-enable ADP for UK users, although that part remains unclear at the time of this writing. Regardless, Americans got a big win today, courtesy of Cupertino and the Trump White House.
It’s time for Kash to come with concrete facts. People have only so much patience.
• FBI Director Kash Patel Outlines Current Status of FBI Reform Effort (CTH)
FBI Director Kash Patel appeared on Fox News Business with Larry Kudlow to discuss the current status of several FBI efforts, including the targeting of international terrorists. Within the interview, Director Patel notes there is an ongoing review of any/all information that surrounds the weaponized use of the FBI under previous leadership. Kudlow narrows in on the FBI raid to Mar-a-Lago, and digs down for details as to whether Patel is investigating the targeting of President Trump post 2020 election. In recent joint appearances with Kash Patel, there appeared to be frustration by President Trump as the Director waxed philosophically about the excellence of his agency while the American electorate looked on with great suspicion. Shortly thereafter came an announcement that Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey would be joining the FBI leadership team as a Co-Deputy Director. The current appearances by Director Patel follow the announcement of Bailey’s addition to the team.
Martin would appear to have a broad agenda. Letitia, Schiff, Jan 6…
• Matt Gaetz Interviews Ed Martin On Adam Schiff, Jan 6 Committee (CTH)
Matt Gaetz is one of the few members of congress who reviewed the activity of the J6 Committee after it was disbanded. In this interview, Matt Gaetz discusses the activity of the J6 Committee with DOJ Working Group leader, Ed Martin. Ed Martin is now tasked with assembling all of the various information from open source, classified and declassified documents while reviewing them for potential criminal violations. Gaetz asks Martin whether any of the J6 activity is positioned to be a part of Ed Martin’s criminal activity review.
I chewed quite a bit on the term “Previous History”. As in: what other kind is there?
• Previous History Indicates that War Is Our Future (Paul Craig Roberts)
Our time is much like Europe during 1912-1914 and 1938-1939. War is brewing, and unlike the earlier periods today the countries likely to be involved, with the exception of Russia, China, and Iran, are not trying to avoid it. Between 1912-1914 the French President Poincare, Russian Foreign Minister Izvolski, later Russian ambassador to France, and Russian Foreign Minister Sazonov were deeply involved in a conspiracy to cause a war between Russia and France (with British approval and involvement) on one side and Germany and Austria-Hungary on the other. Poincaire’s goal was to recover Alsace-Lorraine for France. The Tsar’s ministers wanted Constantinople in order to control the straits that are the entrance from the Black Sea into the Mediterranean. Harry Elmer Barnes tells the story based on the notes the conspirators wrote to one another over the years the conspiracy was prepared and put into operation.
For telling the truth, Barnes, a top of the line American historian, lost his position at Columbia University. The official narrative was that Germany caused the war, a claim for which there is zero evidence. But assigning historical blame to Germany kept attention off the French-Russian conspiracy. As Barnes own fate proved, it did not pay for a historian to tell the truth. The road to professional success was to create a narrative that justified the winners. And the “winners” were actually winners because the Germans were deceived, having foolishly trusted US President Wilson’s “Fourteen points.” The German emperor, a cousin of the British king and Russian Tsar, did everything he could to avoid war, and Germany was the last to mobilize. The country responsible for war is never the last to mobilize.
Both the Germans, the British, and possibly the Tsar were disadvantaged by being unaware of the French-Russian conspiracy for war. The assassination of the Austrian Archduke and Austria’s punitive response to Serbia, was turned by propaganda into the cause for war. Most likely, the assassination was a part of the French-Russian war plot. Regardless, a dispute between Austria-Hungary and Serbia ended up causing a war that killed millions of people in the major European powers and enabled Lenin to overthrow the Russian government. France got Alsace-Lorraine, and Russia got a revolution. Austria-Hungary was destroyed along with the German monarchy. The result was the Versailles Treaty that ensured World War II. The flower of the British leadership class was destroyed along with British financial strength. Turkey remained in control of Constantinople.
Barnes, like David Irving, bases his history on official documents, whereas most historians create a career for themselves by justifying the winners and aligning with the rising political, social, and economic forces. Izvolski arranged for Russian gold to be poured into bribes of French newspapers to silence war opponents, to make a case for war, and to bring Poincare into the French presidency. Russia also bribed leading Serbian politicians to engage in intrigues against Austria-Hungary. We are watching the same thing today, only we don’t know it. The media don’t tell us. They too are bribed. When we look at the American Witkoff and the nominal Russian Dmitriev, what is their real role? Could they be bribe makers whose job it is to produce outcomes that make their principles appear successful? One can hear the patriotic American’s disbelief: “Our country, never!”
But we know of the Clinton’s collection of bribes that have enriched their family. We know of the Hunter-Joe Biden collection of bribes and payoffs. Was the letter Trump’s wife had delivered to Putin about the alleged Ukrainian children the product of an Israeli bribe to get the focus off of Israel’s extermination of Palestinian children? As the realities of what is really underway are not exposed to the light of day, the populations in the US and Europe really have no idea what is going on. Commentators, depending on who is paying them, either spread optimistic hopes or allege Trump is selling out Ukraine. The reality is different.
The reality is that the world is headed into war because of (1) the US foreign policy imperative of American hegemony, and (2) the apparent problem the Russians have of putting themselves in the hands of their hopes instead of acknowledging reality. When a country’s foreign policy doctrine requires the prevention of the rise of any country that can serve as a constraint on its unilateralism, and there are rising countries, there can be no peace. In 1939 the British government gave a guarantee to Poland similar to the NATO guarantee the West wants to give Ukraine. The immediate consequence was World War II.
“Independents and moderates understand instinctively what this means: a government so cynical it ignores its own laws in order to draw maps that guarantee one-party rule.”
• Scandal Threatens to Unravel Newsom’s Gerrymandering Power Grab (Margolis)
A group of California legislators is calling for the feds to step in after credible allegations that Gov. Gavin Newsom and his allies are orchestrating a brazen scheme to gerrymander California congressional districts. As we’ve previously reported here at PJ Media, Newsom has been promising to fight back against Texas Republicans’ controversial mid-cycle redistricting plan, which, of course, was done to offset Democrats’ blatant gerrymandering in blue states, which has inflated their representation in Congress. The problem is that California’s constitution flatly forbids mid-cycle redistricting, and the process for changing the system is no simple matter. Voters have already weighed in twice — in 2008 and 2010 — to strip politicians of their gerrymandering toys and hand the pen to an independent commission.
But now Newsom is bulldozing those safeguards voters established to boost his national profile before he runs for president. He plans to yank control away from the Citizens Redistricting Commission and back into the hands of his loyalist Democrats. Newsom looks less like a “progressive” reformer and more like a backroom operator addicted to power grabs. That’s why Assembly members Carl DeMaio, James Gallagher, Leticia Castillo, Heath Hadwick, David Tangipa, and State Sens. Tony Strickland and Marie Alvarado-Gil just fired off a formal request to the Department of Justice. Their letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi calls on the DOJ to investigate “corruption and violation of federal law” tied to Newsom’s redistricting scheme.
“We write to request that the US Department of Justice consider opening an immediate investigation into allegations of corruption and illegality involving members of the California state legislature and their current redistricting scheme,” the letter states. “As you may be aware, California state legislators — upon the Governor’s demand — have initiated an unprecedented and unnecessary mid-cycle redistricting effort. Article 21 of the California state constitution expressly prohibits such an effort and public opinion is solidly against the idea of mullifying the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission and handing the power back to politicians to manipulate the lines of their own districts.” The letter continues:
“In recent days alarming allegations have surfaced that may explain why state legislators are proceeding forward with such a blatantly unconstitutional and politically unpopular proposal. Specifically, various media outlets are reporting that several members of the state legislature may have not only engaged in drawing the lines of these maps to benefit themselves politically but may be providing their vote for these proposals on the condition that the maps are drawn to benefit themselves. As just one example, KCRA reported that one powerful senator “had one of the new, targeted districts drawn specifically for him in exchange for his support of the redistricting plan.” This kind of backroom dealing and possibility for vote-trading by politicians is the very reason why California voters passed ballot initiatives in 2008 and again in 2010 to take redistricting powers away from the Governor and state legislature.
But here’s the key part right here: “We believe that the backroom dealings may rise to an unlawful level of bribery and vote trading. It is quite possible that federal laws could have been violated in the scheming surrounding these backroom deals over maps. Aside from possible criminal misconduct, we are also concerned with numerous potential violations of federal law related to the process of redistricting and the proposed maps being approved by the state legislature. Public confidence in the integrity of our state legislature is of paramount importance. As such we ask that you review this matter and determine whether a federal investigation is warranted at this time.”
If true, these accusations don’t merely flout the state constitution; they veer directly into federal criminal territory. Bribery, vote trading, the manipulation of congressional maps to benefit oneself politically: These aren’t just morally grotesque; they invite a Justice Department investigation for potential violations of election law. And for once, it’s not just Republicans raising the alarm. Independents and moderates understand instinctively what this means: a government so cynical it ignores its own laws in order to draw maps that guarantee one-party rule. Newsom may think he’s untouchable, but the demand for a DOJ probe suggests that the tide could be turning. If this investigation gains traction, the scheme designed to lock in permanent power for the left could unravel quickly for Newsom, for his allies, and for the illusion of accountability in Sacramento. The governor may soon learn that Californians don’t just oppose corruption; they’ve had more than enough of it.
“Today, it’s all provocative bulls**t all the time. No responsibility. No accountability. You just move on to the next. And it gets us views, it gets us clicks, but it’s not getting us to a better place.”
• Chris Cuomo Declares the Democrat Party ‘Dead’ (Margolis)
Chris Cuomo, the brother of NYC mayoral candidate Andrew Cuomo, reflected on the state of the Democratic Party today during an interview with Benny Johnson on his podcast. There, he delivered a stark verdict: The Democratic Party is dead. Drawing on his personal political lineage, Cuomo pointed out a fundamental shift that has erased the party he once knew and fought for. “My brother’s a Democrat. I don’t know why, but he is. Uh, my father was a Democrat. I know exactly why he was, but his party doesn’t exist anymore,” Cuomo said. “And while I had disagreements with my father about different issues, I knew what principles were guiding him.” Cuomo recalled his father’s era, a time when the Democratic Party was distinctly focused on protecting the little guy and maintaining a balanced role for government.
“My father’s battle was against trickle-down economics and Reagan Republicanism,” he explained. “The Democratic Party that he fought for and the Republican Party that he fought against — neither exists anymore.” Cuomo described his father’s party as one that said, “Take care of the little guy, take care of the little guy, take care of the little guy. Stay out of our bedroom. Stay out of my heart. Just do all the government we need, but only the government we need. And we’re a secular society. Don’t put anything else on me.” According to Cuomo, his father’s Democratic Party embraced a capitalism that offered opportunity in a free market, rejecting socialism while supporting necessary public services like education and entitlements. He emphasized, “No Democrat ever argued for anything else. No Democrat would’ve argued for open borders. You know — none of this. My father would’ve done none of this.”
Discussing how politics has flipped since his father’s time, Cuomo noted that today’s left champions cultural elitism, dictating how people should speak and raise their children. Meanwhile, the Republicans have become anti-establishment champions for the little people trampled upon by the elites, a complete reversal from previous alignments. He said, “They flipped in terms of their operative animus and their constituencies out of convenience and time.” “So, my father’s party is no more,” Cuomo continued. “He believed that the opportunity to be part of a free market was exactly why his parents — illiterate, okay? Uh, unsophisticated, untrained except, uh, with a heart, you know, three sizes too big, filled with ambition and dreams — [came here], to be able to compete, you know? Without some feudal system on your head in rural Italy, where they were telling you who you could be and how you could be. [They believed that] was worth everything.”
When it came to the current chaotic and provocative political environment, Cuomo expressed deep frustration with the lack of responsibility and accountability. He lamented the constant push for controversy over constructive dialogue: “Today, it’s all provocative bulls**t all the time. No responsibility. No accountability. You just move on to the next. And it gets us views, it gets us clicks, but it’s not getting us to a better place.” Chris Cuomo is absolutely right about what the Democratic Party has become. It’s no longer even pretending to fight for the little guy. It exists to serve the coastal elites and their agenda. If Democrats ever cared about everydayAmericans, that was long ago and only for show. Now they thrive on outrage, scandals, and clickbait while ignoring the real problems facing the country. Cuomo’s blunt assessment simply confirms what millions of us already know: The Democratic Party has lost its way and turned its back on the very people it once pretended to represent.
Messerschmitt
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1958500458441429133
Judge Caprio died yesterday
The compassion of Judge Frank Caprio
pic.twitter.com/VrbYzWaGgR— Science girl (@gunsnrosesgirl3) August 21, 2025
Final video from “the world’s nicest judge,” Frank Caprio, who sadly passed away todaypic.twitter.com/CJfHuKTP7G
— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) August 21, 2025
Swan
Little kids performing Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake pic.twitter.com/wt1PDYSj08
— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) August 21, 2025
Build a road to move a church
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1958480858978935039
200
One of the most fascinating facts about the ocean, is that there are whales alive today who were born before Moby Dick was written.
Some of the bowhead whales in the icy waters off of Alaska today are over 200 years old.pic.twitter.com/4x9n5Fc3BL
— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) August 22, 2025
Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.
