Trump was excused…
A diet of burgers and coke
Is harmful to God fearing folk
But Trump was excused
‘cos the transfats refused
To get the fat bastard to croak.
Duda Urges Trump to Intensify Sanctions on Russia
According to a report by Politico, President of Poland Andrzej Duda has called on former U.S. President Donald Trump to intensify sanctions against the Russian Federation in an effort to accelerate the resolution of the ongoing war in Ukraine. Duda emphasized the unique role the United States can play in exerting economic pressure on Moscow to compel meaningful concessions from the Kremlin.
“The United States possesses a wide array of economic instruments capable of influencing the behavior of the Russian Federation,” President Duda stated. “If any nation has the capacity to compel President Vladimir Putin to reconsider his aggressive policies and make tangible concessions, it is the United States of America—and in particular, its President.”
Duda’s appeal reflects broader concerns within the transatlantic alliance about the need for sustained and enhanced pressure on Russia, as well as the pivotal role of American leadership in addressing global security challenges.
UK and France Convinced Trump Putin Was Manipulating Him After Months of Diplomatic Pressure
According to reporting by Politico, a sustained three-month diplomatic effort by the United Kingdom and France has reportedly succeeded in persuading former U.S. President Donald Trump that Russian President Vladimir Putin was exploiting and misleading him.
The initiative, led by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron, involved a series of behind-the-scenes communications and high-level discussions aimed at redirecting Trump’s stance on the war in Ukraine. For months, Starmer and Macron persistently urged Trump to cease applying pressure on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and to refocus his political ire and strategic criticism toward the Kremlin.
Sources familiar with the matter told Politico that a turning point came during Trump’s recent face-to-face meeting with President Zelensky in Rome. The direct encounter is said to have had a strong personal impact on Trump, helping shift his perspective on the nature of Russia’s aggression and the role of Western unity in confronting Moscow’s ambitions.
This diplomatic breakthrough, if sustained, could have significant implications for transatlantic consensus on the Ukraine conflict—particularly in light of Trump’s influence within the U.S. political landscape and the ongoing debate over future military and financial support to Kyiv.
A Fragile Hope: Ukraine and Russia Edge Closer to Peace
As tensions continue to grip Eastern Europe, a glimmer of hope has emerged: the coming week will be crucial in the negotiations aimed at achieving a ceasefire in Ukraine. According to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Ukraine and Russia now stand closer to a peace agreement than at any point in the past three years, raising cautious optimism that a war that has devastated lives, economies, and regional stability could soon see a turning point.
Rubio’s remarks underline the gravity of the moment. After years of entrenched hostility, failed ceasefires, and broken diplomatic initiatives, both Kyiv and Moscow now seem to recognize that the costs of prolonging the conflict may outweigh the perceived benefits of continued confrontation. The current momentum is fragile but significant: it reflects months of quiet diplomacy, shifting military realities on the ground, and growing domestic pressures within both countries to seek an off-ramp from the conflict.
The urgency is clear. Each day without an agreement means more lives lost, more infrastructure destroyed, and deeper wounds inflicted on societies already traumatized by war. At the same time, the negotiations are a complex dance of concessions, guarantees, and mutual distrust. Ceasefire terms must address core grievances, including territorial disputes, security assurances, humanitarian access, and the broader political status of contested regions. Without careful crafting and genuine commitments from both sides, a rushed deal could collapse as previous ceasefires have.
For Ukraine, the stakes are existential: preserving its sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the hard-fought resilience of its people. For Russia, achieving a face-saving compromise is essential, as economic sanctions and prolonged isolation weigh heavily on its political and economic future. Meanwhile, international actors, particularly the United States and European powers, are exerting pressure behind the scenes to prevent a prolonged stalemate and ensure that any agreement is sustainable and credible.
However, optimism must be tempered with realism. Peace agreements are not signed merely because leaders meet at a table; they are the product of painstaking negotiation, mutual concessions, and the rebuilding of minimal trust. The ghosts of previous failed accords — from Minsk I and II to more recent efforts — loom large over current talks. Ensuring enforcement mechanisms, involving neutral guarantors, and setting clear roadmaps for political and economic recovery will be critical in turning a ceasefire into a lasting peace.
Secretary Rubio’s statement signals that the international community must be prepared to support and pressure both sides equally. Diplomacy has brought the parties to the brink of an agreement, but the real challenge lies in what follows: verification, reconciliation, and reconstruction.
In this pivotal week, history may pivot. Whether Ukraine and Russia step back from the abyss, or spiral again into renewed violence, will depend on decisions made now — decisions that will echo for generations.
U.S. Policy Shift Under Trump: Concern Over Peace Plans
Ukraine is reportedly preparing for the possibility of a complete withdrawal of support from the United States, according to the German outlet Bild, which cites a senior source within the Ukrainian government.
“We are preparing for the worst-case scenario, which would entail the termination of U.S. assistance,” the source stated. The same official voiced concern over the peace proposal put forward by former U.S. President Donald Trump, noting, “We had hoped this was merely a negotiating tactic. However, Trump appears neither to be exerting pressure on President Putin nor imposing any sanctions.”
Furthermore, an anonymous Ukrainian diplomat told Bild that the terms proposed by Trump are deemed unacceptable by Kyiv.
“What is written on paper and what was communicated to us during the negotiations is simply not acceptable. We will not surrender. Even if the government were inclined to agree — which it is not — the public would not accept it,” the diplomat emphasized.
BREAKING: U.S. and Europe Propose Competing Ukraine Peace Plans
Reuters has released what appear to be draft versions of peace proposals presented separately by the United States and a joint European-Ukrainian delegation during the most recent diplomatic negotiations aimed at resolving the war in Ukraine. The documents outline competing visions for a comprehensive settlement, covering ceasefire arrangements, security guarantees, territorial questions, and economic cooperation.
The U.S. proposal calls for the immediate establishment of a permanent ceasefire, with both parties entering negotiations on the technical modalities of its implementation. Under the proposed framework, Ukraine would receive solid security guarantees provided by a select group of European states and willing non-European partners. Notably, Ukraine would commit to abandoning its pursuit of NATO membership, while retaining the right to seek accession to the European Union.
On territorial matters, the United States would legally recognize Russia’s control over Crimea and de facto acknowledge its authority over Luhansk, as well as Russian-held areas of Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson. In return, Ukraine would regain territories in the Kharkiv region. Ukrainian control over the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant would be restored with U.S. mediation, and the facility’s management and energy distribution would be jointly shared. Control of the Kakhovka Dam would also revert to Ukraine. In addition, the U.S. plan envisions unrestricted Ukrainian navigation on the Dnieper River and Ukrainian control over the Kinburn Spit.
On the economic front, the U.S. and Ukraine would conclude a bilateral agreement focused on cooperation and access to mineral resources. Ukraine would be fully reconstructed and financially compensated. In parallel, all sanctions imposed on Russia since the onset of hostilities in 2014 would be lifted. The proposal also calls for the resumption of U.S.-Russian economic cooperation, particularly in the energy and industrial sectors.
In contrast, the counter-proposal submitted by Ukraine and European partners places stronger emphasis on legal accountability and conditional peace. It envisions a comprehensive and unconditional ceasefire across all domains—land, air, and sea—monitored under U.S. leadership with the participation of third-party states. Simultaneously, technical discussions on implementation would begin in parallel with negotiations over a broader peace agreement. The Ukrainian side insists that Russia must unconditionally return all deported and illegally displaced Ukrainian children, and that all civilian prisoners and prisoners of war must be exchanged on an “all-for-all” basis.
Regarding security guarantees, Ukraine would receive robust protections from a coalition that includes the United States, potentially modeled on NATO’s Article 5. Although no consensus exists among allies regarding Ukraine’s NATO accession, there would be no restrictions on the size of Ukraine’s armed forces or on the presence of friendly foreign troops on its territory. Ukraine’s right to continue its pursuit of EU membership is reaffirmed.
Territorial issues, under this proposal, would be addressed only after a complete and unconditional ceasefire is in place, with negotiations beginning along the current line of contact. Like the U.S. proposal, Ukraine would regain control over the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant and the Kakhovka Dam with U.S. involvement. Ukraine would also maintain unrestricted navigation on the Dnieper River and control over the Kinburn Spit.
In terms of economic recovery, the counter-proposal foresees a U.S.-Ukraine agreement on economic cooperation and access to critical minerals. Ukraine’s reconstruction and financial compensation would be secured through multiple channels, including the use of frozen Russian sovereign assets. These assets would remain frozen until Russia provides reparations for the damage inflicted. Sanctions imposed on Russia would be lifted gradually, and only upon the achievement of a durable peace, with mechanisms in place for their immediate reimposition in the event of future violations—a so-called “snapback” clause.
While both documents reflect a willingness to seek a negotiated end to the war, they differ significantly in terms of conditions, territorial recognition, and sequencing. The stark contrast between the two drafts underscores the complexity of forging a mutually acceptable peace and the geopolitical stakes surrounding any future agreement.
China Hits Back: Sanctions U.S. Officials
China is imposing sanctions on U.S. lawmakers, government officials and NGO leaders for their “outrageous behavior on Hong Kong-related issues.”
The sanctions follow U.S. sanctions on Chinese officials last month, which China “strongly condemns,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said.
“Any wrongdoing by the U.S. side on Hong Kong-related issues will be met with firm and reciprocal countermeasures by the Chinese side,” he said.
“Trump: ‘Keep Musk Out’ of Defence Talks”
According to a report published by Axios, former U.S. President Donald Trump personally intervened to halt a classified Pentagon briefing that had been scheduled to provide Elon Musk with insights into the United States’ strategic considerations in the event of a potential military confrontation with the People’s Republic of China.
The briefing was reportedly part of broader efforts to engage key private-sector stakeholders in national security planning, particularly those with critical infrastructure and technological assets relevant to modern warfare and strategic deterrence—areas in which Musk, through SpaceX and Starlink, holds significant influence. However, according to sources cited by Axios, President Trump questioned the appropriateness of Musk’s inclusion in such high-level discussions. He is quoted as saying, “What the hell is Musk doing here? Make sure he doesn’t come here,” reflecting concerns over either Musk’s role, potential conflicts of interest, or the implications of his access to sensitive defense information.
This incident highlights the complex and sometimes contentious intersection between private enterprise and national security, particularly in an era where key technologies- ranging from satellite communications to AI and space-based infrastructure – are increasingly developed and controlled by non-state actors. It also underscores the degree to which presidential discretion can shape interagency coordination and public-private engagement on issues of strategic significance.
DOGE staffers remove IT security protections; NLRB suffers large data breach
Whistle blower IT Staffer Daniel Berulis identified that DOGE staffers accessed National Labor Relations Board internal data, and then deleted the accounts they used to access that data.
There was a large, and exceptional exfiltration of NLRB data via one of those deleted accounts. DOGE has allowed STARLINK access to US Govt systems; the destination of this exfiltration was not able to be ascertained.
The DOGE staffers disabled core NLRB IT security systems that protected access including multifactor authentication (which requires an additional code, beyond a user name and password to login) and also opened a network interface that faces towards a public Internet; something that would allow exfiltration of data.
An IP address in Russia used one of DOGE accounts within FIFTEEN MINUTES of the account being created – the Russian “hacker” – or perhaps DOGE employee, living in Russia? …then had 20 login attempts before giving up. That person in Russia was using both a legitimate user name, and a valid password.
The NLRB also had a security policy that did not allow out of country logins. DOGE staffers, intentionally, or through ignorance, did not disable that policy.
Was the Russian account user told that multifactor authentication was disabled, and therefor assumed the account could be logged in, and yet DOGE was simply not aware of the further security barrier, which prevented out of country logins?
It would seem likely that the login credentials were provisioned by DOGE to the user of the Russian account, with the attempt of allowing access. For a username and password to have been “guessed” within fifteen minutes of the account being created would be very unlikely, if not impossible.
The whistle-blower Daniel Berulis was threatened with a menacing note, attached to his home address, including a photo of him walking his dog taken by a drone – telling him to desist with his reports. This is the first time that a US Govt whistle-blower has received such a threat.
Full interview and transcript of PBS News’s interview of Daniel Berulis is available here
Zaluzhny Reveals Secret NATO Command Center in Germany
Former Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Valery Zaluzhny, has revealed the existence of a covert operational headquarters in Germany where Ukrainian, American, and British military officers collaborate on strategic planning against Russia.
According to Zaluzhny, this facility serves as a coordination centre for joint military efforts, including intelligence sharing, strategic planning, and operational oversight in Ukraine’s defence against Russian aggression. The disclosure highlights the depth of military cooperation between Ukraine and its Western allies, emphasizing their role in shaping battlefield tactics and broader strategic initiatives.
While neither the United States, the United Kingdom, nor Germany have officially confirmed the existence of such a facility, the existence of such a command centre would underscore the level of international support for Ukraine in its ongoing conflict with Russia.