While Trump negotiated peace at Mar-a-Lago, CIA operatives staged a fake assassination attempt to frame Putin and derail the talks. Trump had just secured Venezuela and Guyana’s energy, he doesn’t need Europe or Forever War with Russia. The CIA does. Ukraine has been sacrificed for their institutional interests.
On December 28, 2025, as President Donald Trump welcomed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to Mar-a-Lago for what both leaders described as breakthrough peace negotiations, ninety-one Ukrainian drones allegedly converged on Russia’s Valdai district from three directions in what Moscow characterized as a coordinated assassination attempt on Vladimir Putin’s residence. Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson assessed the operation as CIA theater, noting that the sophistication, coordination, and timing pointed to American intelligence orchestrating a false flag designed to give Russia justification for abandoning peace talks.
The CIA’s subsequent assessment that the attack “likely never occurred” or didn’t target Putin’s residence wasn’t damage control after a failed assassination, it was admission that the entire incident was fabricated theater. Director John Ratcliffe briefed Trump that the agency found no credible evidence supporting Russia’s claims, because there was no genuine attack to find evidence of. The operation’s purpose wasn’t killing Putin, it was framing him, giving Moscow the justification it needed to announce it would “fundamentally alter its current negotiating position” and reject Trump’s peace framework.
Ukraine wasn’t the beneficiary of this operation (it was the sacrifice. For three years, Ukrainian society has been destroyed, roughly 10 million people) one quarter of its pre-war population, lost to death, displacement, and demographic collapse, all to serve Western institutional interests that have nothing to do with Ukrainian sovereignty or security.
The false flag theater occurred within hours of Trump’s phone call with Putin and his face-to-face meeting with Zelensky. Six days later, on January 3, Trump would launch Operation Absolute Resolve, a Delta Force raid that kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and secured America’s energy position in the Western Hemisphere. The juxtaposition reveals everything about competing strategic visions. Trump’s logic was straightforward: secure Venezuela and Guyana (now producing nearly 900,000 barrels per day with capacity headed to 1.5 million), pivot to China competition, let Europe manage its own catastrophes. Russia has been sufficiently weakened. Peace serves American interests. Ukraine can be spared further destruction.
The CIA’s logic was different: Forever War with Russia regardless of American interests, European collapse, Ukrainian depopulation, or Trump’s strategic priorities. Hence the false flag operation precisely when Trump’s peace initiative gained momentum, framing Putin as the obstacle to peace when the actual obstacle is America’s permanent security apparatus requiring Ukraine’s continued sacrifice.
Trump’s December 2025 National Security Strategy made his Monroe Doctrine revival explicit: “After years of neglect, the United States will reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere”. The strategy declares America will “deny non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets, in our Hemisphere”. Translation: secure the Caribbean and South America, abandon Europe to its self-inflicted policy disasters, stop sacrificing Ukraine for institutional interests, focus on China.
Venezuela was the final piece. Trump had CIA teams infiltrated into Caracas by August 2025, tracking Maduro’s movements, sleep schedules, even his pets. Delta Force trained for months using a replica of Maduro’s compound, the same methodology that killed Osama bin Laden. At 2:01 AM on January 3, 2026, US special forces landed at Maduro’s residence, breached his steel-reinforced safe room, and extracted him and his wife. Within an hour, Trump posted a photograph of Maduro aboard the USS Iwo Jima, blindfolded, handcuffed, in a gray Nike sweatsuit.
Trump called it the “Donroe Doctrine”, a portmanteau of Donald Trump and James Monroe, signaling that American dominance in the Western Hemisphere “will never be questioned again”. With Venezuela secured and ExxonMobil producing nearly a million barrels daily from Guyana, Trump no longer needs European energy markets, European security commitments, or continued confrontation with Russia. The strategic rationale for bleeding Russia was always preparing for China competition. Russia has been bled. China is the priority. Europe can’t defend itself and has wrecked its own economy through Green Party energy disasters. Time to pivot and stop sacrificing Ukraine.
But the CIA, Pentagon neoconservatives, European Union bureaucrats, and defense contractors who’ve enjoyed fifteen-fold stock appreciation since February 2022 need Forever War with Russia and Ukraine’s continued sacrifice. Trump’s peace initiative threatened their institutional interests, financial arrangements, and ideological commitments. So on December 28, literally while Trump was in the room with Zelensky negotiating settlement, CIA operatives staged false flag theater framing Putin to give Russia justification for rejecting peace.
Trump wants to focus on China. The EU can’t afford to defend itself after decades of NATO underfunding and Green Party energy policy disasters. Venezuela and Guyana are secured, America’s energy position in the Western Hemisphere is unassailable. The strategic logic for Trump’s peace initiative is sound: Russia sufficiently weakened, European dependence on American security guarantees ended, Western Hemisphere secured, pivot to China competition, stop Ukraine’s depopulation and destruction.
The CIA framed Putin because that logic threatens everything the permanent security apparatus has built. European Union elites welcomed the false flag operation because they desperately need external enemies to blame for catastrophic domestic policy failures. American defense contractors saw confirmation that their record profits will continue. Neoconservative ideologues in Washington preserved their regime-change fantasies in Moscow. Corporate interests positioning to exploit Ukraine’s $10-12 trillion in critical minerals gained assurance that sufficient depopulation will make extraction agreements politically feasible, Ukraine’s sacrifice must continue.
When retired Swiss Colonel Jacques Baud, a former NATO intelligence analyst with impeccable credentials from service in the United Nations and Swiss strategic intelligence, quoted Ukrainian presidential advisor Oleksiy Arestovych’s 2019 admission that Ukraine planned to provoke Russian invasion as its “ticket to NATO,” the European Union didn’t challenge his facts. Brussels sanctioned him instead. Baud’s bank accounts were frozen, his ability to travel within the Schengen area revoked, and his capacity to conduct normal economic life extinguished, all without criminal charges, judicial process, or presentation of evidence.
Baud’s treatment reveals something more disturbing than bureaucratic overreach. It exposes a systematic campaign by Western institutions to manufacture an official narrative about the war’s origins while criminalizing anyone who examines the documented record. The label “Russian propaganda” has become a weapon deployed not against Moscow’s actual disinformation, but against Western analysts, journalists, and former officials whose research threatens to expose how deliberately this conflict was engineered, how Ukraine was systematically sacrificed, and why Trump’s peace initiative serves American interests and Ukrainian survival while the CIA’s false flag operation framing Putin serves only institutional preservation requiring Ukraine’s continued destruction.
The question Brussels, Washington, and the CIA refuse to answer is simple: Why did the West systematically create conditions guaranteed to provoke war, sabotage every attempt at peace, sacrifice Ukrainian society through deliberate depopulation and destruction, and now, when Trump’s strategic pivot makes settlement logical, stage a false flag operation framing Putin to prevent peace and ensure Ukraine’s sacrifice continues?
The Provocation: NATO Expansion Despite Explicit Red Lines
In February 2008, William Burns, currently serving as CIA Director, was U.S. Ambassador to Russia. Burns sent an urgent cable to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates titled, in all capital letters, “NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA’S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES”. The cable, which emerged through WikiLeaks in 2010, documented Burns’ conversations with Russian officials across the political spectrum, from Kremlin hardliners to liberal critics of Putin. His conclusion was unambiguous: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin)”.
Burns explained that NATO enlargement to Ukraine represented “an emotional and neuralgic” issue, but also a strategic policy matter with concrete security implications. Russian officials warned him that such expansion would have repercussions throughout the region and could cause Russia to revisit arms control agreements with the West. In a rare personal meeting with Putin before leaving his ambassadorial post, Burns heard the Russian president state plainly: “No Russian leader could stand idly by in the face of steps toward NATO membership for Ukraine. That would be a hostile act toward Russia. We would do all in our power to prevent it”.
This was not an intelligence estimate subject to interpretation. It was documented policy from a nuclear-armed power explicitly stating its red lines.
President George W. Bush ignored these warnings entirely. In April 2008, over the objections of France and Germany, the Bush administration pushed through the Bucharest Summit declaration promising NATO membership to both Ukraine and Georgia. The decision wasn’t made in ignorance of Russian views, it was made in full knowledge that Russia considered it an existential threat.
Eighteen years later, after hundreds of thousands of deaths and Ukraine’s systematic sacrifice through depopulation and destruction, Western officials describe Russia’s invasion as “unprovoked.” Yet their own diplomatic cables prove they were explicitly warned that crossing this specific red line would provoke exactly the response that occurred. Ukraine’s destruction was engineered, not accidental.
The Deception: Minsk as Military Buildup Cover
For eight years between 2014 and 2022, the Minsk agreements were presented to the international community as a framework for peaceful resolution of the Donbas conflict. Negotiated by Angela Merkel, François Hollande, Petro Poroshenko, and Vladimir Putin in September 2014, the accords established a ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons, a security zone monitored by the OSCE, and provisions for special constitutional status for Donetsk and Luhansk.
In December 2022, Merkel gave a lengthy interview to the German weekly Die Zeit in which she admitted the agreements were fraudulent from the start. “The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give time to Ukraine,” Merkel stated. “It also used this time to become stronger as can be seen today”. She continued: “It was clear to everyone that this was a frozen conflict, that the problem had not been solved, but that is precisely what gave Ukraine valuable time”.
The former German chancellor confirmed that NATO wanted war from the beginning but needed time to prepare militarily. While publicly committing to peace, the West was privately arming Ukraine and building its capacity to fight Russia, preparing Ukraine for the sacrifice that would serve Western institutional interests. For eight years, Russian officials negotiated in good faith under agreements their counterparts knew were designed to deceive.
Hollande later confirmed Merkel’s account, and Ukrainian officials were even more explicit. David Arakhamia, parliamentary leader of Zelensky’s “Servant of the People” party who led Ukraine’s delegation in peace talks, acknowledged that during the 2022 Istanbul negotiations, Moscow was “ready to end the war if we took neutrality… and made commitments that we would not join NATO”. But by then, Ukraine’s military had been substantially strengthened during the Minsk deception period, fundamentally changing the strategic calculus and ensuring Ukraine would be bled further for Western purposes.
From Russia’s perspective, this revelation is devastating. If Minsk was a delaying tactic rather than genuine peace effort, then every subsequent Western proposal for negotiations becomes inherently suspect. Why trust guarantees when the last set was explicitly designed as deception to prepare Ukraine for sacrifice?
The Strategy: Ukraine’s Admitted Provocation Plan
The most damning evidence that this war was deliberately engineered, with Ukraine positioned for sacrifice, comes not from Moscow but from Kyiv itself. In 2019, three years before Russia’s invasion, Oleksiy Arestovych, who would later become one of President Zelensky’s top advisors, gave an interview to the Ukrainian news channel Apostrophe in which he explained Ukraine’s strategic approach with remarkable candor.
Arestovych stated that NATO accession was Ukraine’s only hope of securing independence: “If we don’t join NATO, it’s gonna be absorption by Russia within 10-12 years”. But he understood that pushing for NATO membership would trigger Russian military response. “The price for joining NATO is a big war with Russia,” Arestovych declared. He predicted the invasion with stunning accuracy, describing air offensives, multi-directional ground assaults including from Belarus, a siege of Kyiv, and Russian attempts to degrade Ukrainian infrastructure.
Most remarkably, Arestovych presented Russian invasion as Ukraine’s best strategic option: “If we provoke or threaten to expand NATO to Ukraine, this will compel the Russians to invade. Then that will be our ticket to joining NATO, Russia will feel threatened, they will invade, and then with the help of NATO we’ll defeat Russia. This is how we will get into NATO”.
This was not speculation after the fact. This was Ukraine’s presidential advisor in 2019 explicitly laying out a strategy of provocation designed to trigger the very invasion Western officials now call “unprovoked”, positioning Ukraine as the sacrifice for Western strategic objectives. Arestovych believed the possibility of invasion was “99.9%,” with the period 2020-2022 being “the most critical”.
The tragedy is that Ukraine’s leadership gambled on Western support that would secure victory and NATO membership. Instead, the West has systematically sacrificed Ukraine, using it to bleed Russia while ensuring depopulation and destruction create conditions for resource extraction that wouldn’t be politically feasible with Ukraine’s pre-war population intact.
When Colonel Jacques Baud quoted these statements from Arestovych in his analysis, the EU sanctioned him for “spreading Russian propaganda”. The problem wasn’t that Baud had fabricated anything, Arestovych’s interview remains publicly available. The problem was that acknowledging Ukraine’s leadership wanted Russian invasion as NATO ticket, and that the West then systematically sacrificed Ukraine for institutional interests rather than delivering promised support, demolished the entire Western narrative.
The Sabotage: Boris Johnson Destroys the Istanbul Peace Deal
The war could have ended in its first month, sparing Ukraine the subsequent sacrifice. By late March 2022, Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett was mediating intensive negotiations between Russia and Ukraine in which both sides made significant concessions. Bennett, who flew to Moscow on March 4 to meet with Putin, coordinated his efforts with the United States, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.
According to Bennett’s later account, Russia dropped “denazification”, defined as removal of Zelensky, as a requirement for ceasefire. Putin personally guaranteed he wouldn’t try to kill the Ukrainian president. Russia also agreed not to seek Ukraine’s disarmament. For the Ukrainian side, Zelensky “renounced” NATO membership aspirations, which Bennett identified as “the reason” for Russia’s invasion.
These negotiations culminated in the Istanbul communiqué in late March 2022. Ukraine promised not to join NATO or allow foreign military bases on its soil. Russia promised to withdraw occupation troops, though not from Donbas or Crimea. David Arakhamia later revealed that Moscow was “ready to end the war if we took neutrality… and made commitments that we would not join NATO”.
As the framework for a tentative deal emerged that would have spared Ukraine its subsequent sacrifice, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson made an unannounced trip to Kyiv on April 9, 2022. According to Ukrainian media outlet Ukrainska Pravda, Johnson brought two messages: “The first is that Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with. And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they [the UK and US] are not”.
Victoria Nuland, Biden’s Under Secretary of State, later confirmed Western interference in remarkably casual terms: “us and the Brits advised Ukraine against accepting the terms on offer in Istanbul”. Amanda Sloat, Biden’s Senior Director for Europe at the National Security Council, subsequently acknowledged the consequences: “Would that have been better to do before the war started, would that have been better to do in Istanbul talks. It certainly would have prevented the destruction and the loss of life”.
Three days after Johnson’s departure from Kyiv, Putin announced that talks with Ukraine “had turned into a dead end”. Israeli Prime Minister Bennett later stated that Ukraine’s Western allies had “blocked” the agreement, though he subsequently expressed doubts about whether such a deal was desirable.
Every Ukrainian death, every refugee, every percentage point of depopulation since April 2022 is partially Boris Johnson’s responsibility. He personally flew to Kyiv to kill a peace agreement both sides were prepared to accept, ensuring Ukraine’s sacrifice would continue. The question is why. If the goal was saving Ukrainian lives and sovereignty, the Istanbul framework accomplished both. If the goal was bleeding Russia through prolonged proxy war while systematically depopulating and destroying Ukraine to create conditions for resource extraction, then sabotaging peace made strategic sense.
When Trump announced progress toward peace in December 2025 that would finally end Ukraine’s sacrifice, forces invested in continuing the war (specifically CIA operatives, as Larry Johnson identified) immediately responded with a false flag operation designed to derail negotiations by framing Putin. The December 28 fabricated assassination attempt served that strategic function perfectly.
Biden’s Somnambulant Presidency: Policy by Neoconservative Autopilot
President Joe Biden’s role in Ukraine’s sacrifice is distinguished primarily by his absence. While Biden struggled to complete sentences coherently, actual U.S. policy toward Ukraine was formulated and executed by a triumvirate of neoconservative ideologues who had spent careers advocating confrontation with Russia: National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Under Secretary Victoria Nuland.
Nuland’s involvement in Ukraine long predated Russia’s invasion. In 2013-2014, as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Nuland became the operational commander of Western efforts to overthrow Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. She visited the Maidan protests repeatedly, handing out cookies to demonstrators and expressing explicit support for regime change. When Russian intelligence intercepted and leaked a February 2014 phone call between Nuland and U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, the extent of American interference became undeniable.
In that infamous call, Nuland and Pyatt discussed in granular detail their preferences for personnel in a post-Yanukovych government. Nuland enthusiastically identified Arseniy Yatsenyuk as her preferred candidate: “I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience”. When Pyatt warned that Europeans might not support Yatsenyuk, Nuland replied with diplomatic eloquence: “Fuck the EU”. Following Yanukovych’s ouster, Yatsenyuk became prime minister precisely as Nuland had planned.
The two diplomats also discussed escalating American involvement in Ukraine’s political transition. Pyatt stated bluntly: “We want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing”. Nuland had Vice President Biden in mind for that role, noting that his national security advisor was in direct contact with her to “get the details to stick. So Biden’s willing”.
This wasn’t diplomatic support for democratic movements. This was naked regime change operation in which American officials selected Ukraine’s next government and deployed the Vice President to legitimize the transition. The result was installation of a virulently anti-Russian government in a country Russia views as strategically critical, predictably triggering the Donbas separatist conflict that began in 2014, setting Ukraine on the path to sacrifice.
Twelve years later, as President, Biden played virtually no meaningful role in Ukraine policy formation. Sullivan, Blinken, and Nuland sabotaged the Istanbul peace talks, blocked negotiations throughout 2022-2024, and pursued open-ended military support without defined victory conditions or exit strategy, systematically sacrificing Ukraine for institutional interests. While Biden’s cognition deteriorated publicly, his neoconservative handlers drove America into proxy war with a nuclear power whose red lines they had spent a decade deliberately crossing, ensuring Ukraine’s depopulation and destruction would continue.
Europe’s Catastrophic Embrace: Why Brussels Needed Ukraine’s Sacrifice
To understand why European leaders not only accepted but actively embraced American manipulation toward war that would sacrifice Ukraine, one must recognize that they desperately needed an external enemy to blame for catastrophic policy failures they had inflicted on their own populations.
Germany’s Energiewendethe transition to renewable energy, left Europe’s industrial heartland dependent on Russian natural gas precisely while making energy supply unreliable and expensive. When the lights flickered, factories closed, and energy costs destroyed industrial competitiveness, German officials faced a choice: admit their Green Party-driven policies had wrecked the economy, or find a scapegoat. Russia provided perfect cover, and Ukraine’s sacrifice provided the mechanism. Rather than acknowledging that closing nuclear plants and betting everything on intermittent renewables was economically suicidal, German leaders could blame “Putin’s energy weapon” for consequences they had engineered themselves, while Ukraine paid the price.
By 2023, household electricity prices in Germany reached €0.4020 per kilowatt-hour minus 66 cents in U.S. currency, the highest in Europe and 41 percent above the EU average. German manufacturers faced energy costs their American and Chinese competitors didn’t bear. BASF, the world’s largest chemical company, began closing German facilities and shifting investment to China and the United States. Volkswagen closed German plants for the first time in its history. As industrial economist Siegfried Russwurm, head of the Federation of German Industries, told the Financial Times in January 2023: Germany’s climate agenda is “more dogmatic than any other country I know” and “absolutely toxic” for manufacturing.
The renewable energy experiment, which former Chancellor Angela Merkel turbocharged in 2011 by announcing nuclear phaseout, promised low-carbon economy powered by affordable, reliable energy. It delivered none of this. Instead, Germany achieved transition from export-oriented industrial powerhouse to what observers increasingly call “the new sick man of Europe”. The eighth monitoring report of the Energiewende presented to Merkel concluded Germany cannot produce sufficient renewables on its own territory to satisfy demand, it would always require imported power, straining other EU members struggling with identical challenges.
Climate policy disasters intertwined with migration crisis spending, NATO underfunding after decades of free-riding on American security guarantees, euro crisis bailouts, COVID spending bonanzas, and structural economic dysfunction to produce fragile, overleveraged European economies sliding toward recession. When economic pain intensified, European political classes faced growing popular revolt, Yellow Vests in France, AfD surges in Germany, populist parties across the continent challenging Brussels’ authority and elite legitimacy.
War with Russia, requiring Ukraine’s sacrifice, solved multiple problems simultaneously. It excused energy disasters (blame Putin, not Greens), justified economic collapse (Russian aggression, not policy failure), covered the migration crisis (Ukrainian refugees good, Middle Eastern refugees complicated), explained decades of military weakness (we need rearmament because Russia!), distracted from elite corruption, and redirected populist anger toward external enemy rather than internal failure.
European elites didn’t resist American manipulation toward war, they welcomed it as perfect distraction from their own incompetence, and welcomed Ukraine’s sacrifice as the mechanism. When Ursula von der Leyen, Kaja Kallas, and other European leaders beat war drums, they aren’t just serving American strategic interests. They’re covering domestic policy catastrophes with Russia as universal scapegoat for everything they broke themselves, and Ukraine as the necessary sacrifice that makes the scapegoating credible.
Von der Leyen’s Corruption: When Failure Becomes Credentials
Ursula von der Leyen’s elevation to European Commission President represents the triumph of corruption and failure as qualifications for higher office. As Germany’s Defense Minister from 2013 to 2019, she presided over a consulting scandal that would have ended most political careers. The ministry spent €100 million on external consultants in 2015 and over €150 million in 2016, while officially reporting only tiny fractions of those sums to the Bundestag. A large share of contracts went to McKinsey & Company, where von der Leyen’s son David worked as an associate. Many contracts were awarded without proper competitive tender, a practice Germany’s Federal Court of Auditors condemned as “inadmissible”.
When parliamentary inquiry designated text messages and phone records from von der Leyen’s devices as evidence in July 2019, the phones were handed to the ministry and comprehensively wiped in August 2019. Von der Leyen assured parliamentarians she had personally reviewed all messages “to the best of my knowledge and belief” before deletion and determined none were relevant to the investigation. Tobias Lindner, a Green MP on the investigating committee, filed criminal complaint alleging destruction of evidence.
Instead of ending her career, this record became prelude to promotion. In July 2019, von der Leyen left German jurisdiction to become European Commission President. In Brussels, she reprised the same pattern with vastly larger sums. During the pandemic, she negotiated by text message with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla over contracts for 1.8 billion additional vaccine doses worth tens of billions of euros. When journalists and watchdogs attempted to obtain those messages under EU transparency law, her staff claimed they were “short-lived communications” that didn’t need archiving. The European Ombudsman concluded her handling violated transparency obligations, yet she faced no real consequences and was reelected Commission President in 2024.
Von der Leyen’s political brand as Commission President has been “geopolitical Europe”, explicitly shifting the EU’s purpose from economic integration and peace toward strategic confrontation with Russia requiring Ukraine’s sacrifice. Her son’s employer, McKinsey, is deeply embedded advising defense contractors like Rheinmetall and BAE Systems that have enjoyed extraordinary stock appreciation since 2022. Rheinmetall shares rose from roughly €90 before invasion to over €600 by late 2025, a fifteen-fold return as European governments allocated more than €35 billion in military aid to Ukraine.
The incentives are transparent: deescalation that deflates European defense budgets threatens not only von der Leyen’s political narrative but also financial interests directly connected to her family. Peace would expose the scale of Europe’s energy and industrial self-harm and raise uncomfortable questions about why so many decision-makers, consultants, and lobbyists prospered while their societies absorbed catastrophic costs, and why Ukraine was systematically sacrificed for their benefit.
Graham’s Resource Grab: The Purpose of Ukraine’s Sacrifice
Senator Lindsey Graham has been refreshingly candid about why Ukraine’s sacrifice serves American corporate interests. During a September 2024 visit to Kyiv, standing next to President Zelensky, Graham explained why continued American support matters: “They’re sitting on a trillion dollars worth of minerals that could be good to our economy”. In a June CBS interview, Graham expanded: “They’re sitting on $10 to $12 trillion of critical minerals in Ukraine. They could be the richest country in all of Europe. I don’t want to give that money and those assets to Putin to share with China”.
The senator wasn’t describing defensive aid to resist aggression. He was describing resource extraction made possible by Ukraine’s sacrifice: “They just need weapons,” Graham stated. Ukraine is “trying to stop the Russians, so we don’t have to fight them”. The calculation is brutally transactional, equip Ukrainians to die fighting Russia, depopulate the country through death and displacement, then position American corporations to exploit the country’s mineral wealth once the population is sufficiently depleted and desperate to accept any reconstruction terms offered.
The Washington Post reported in 2022 that “Ukraine harbors some of the world’s largest reserves of titanium and iron ore, fields of untapped lithium and massive deposits of coal. Collectively, they are worth tens of trillions of dollars”. Additionally, Ukraine possesses “myriad other reserves, including stores of natural gas, oil and rare earth minerals, essential for certain high-tech components, that could hamper Western Europe’s search for alternatives to imports from Russia and China”.
This context explains provisions added to U.S. federal law in 2021. The U.S. Code was revised to include a new section titled “Cooperation Between the United States and Ukraine Regarding the Titanium Industry,” which states it is U.S. policy “to engage with the Government of Ukraine on cooperation in the titanium industry as a potential alternative to Chinese and Russian sources on which the United States and Europe currently depend”. The legal groundwork for post-war resource extraction was laid before the invasion occurred, Ukraine’s sacrifice was planned, not accidental.
The Ukrainian refugee crisis facilitates this agenda and reveals the sacrifice’s scale. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees recorded 6.9 million Ukrainian refugees abroad as of 2025, with Ukraine’s total population having declined by approximately 10 million people, roughly one-quarter of the pre-war figure, due to refugees, war deaths, and collapsed birth rates. The Centre for Economic Strategy, a Ukrainian think tank, reported in March 2025 that approximately 5.2 million Ukrainians who departed since invasion remain abroad, with between 2.7 million potentially staying overseas permanently. Independent UN projections from 2024 suggest Ukraine’s population could decline to between 9 and 23 million by 2100.
Depopulation creates conditions for resource extraction agreements that wouldn’t be politically feasible with Ukraine’s pre-war population intact. Millions of working-age Ukrainians have fled. Hundreds of thousands are dead. When the war ends, survivors will accept reconstruction terms from any source offering capital, including arrangements giving Western corporations controlling stakes in Ukraine’s minerals, natural gas, and rare earth deposits. As Graham noted, “This is a very big deal, how Ukraine ends”.
For corporate interests positioned to exploit Ukraine’s resources, depopulation is feature, not bug. Ukraine’s sacrifice serves this purpose. Trump’s peace initiative threatened to end the sacrifice before depopulation and destruction were complete. Hence the CIA’s December 28 false flag operation framing Putin to ensure the sacrifice continues.
The “Russian Propaganda” Inversion: Truth as Disinformation
Every claim Western establishments labeled “Russian propaganda” has proven factually correct:
NATO expansion provoked Russia: William Burns’ 2008 cable documented this as established fact.
Istanbul talks were sabotaged: Bennett, Turkish Foreign Minister Çavuşoğlu, and Victoria Nuland all confirmed Western interference blocked peace that would have spared Ukraine’s sacrifice.
Minsk was deception: Merkel and Hollande admitted the agreements were designed to buy time for Ukraine’s military buildup, preparing Ukraine for sacrifice rather than pursuing genuine peace.
Ukraine’s strategy was provocation: Arestovych explained in 2019 that Ukraine’s plan was provoking Russian invasion as ticket to NATO, positioning Ukraine for the sacrifice that followed.
Sanctions hurt Europe more than Russia: German industry is collapsing while Russia redirected energy exports to Asia, and Ukraine paid the price for European policy failures.
Meanwhile, actual propaganda, the lies justifying continued war and Ukraine’s continued sacrifice, came from Western establishments. The propaganda merchants aren’t in Moscow. They’re in Brussels, London, and Washington, manufacturing narratives while enriching defense contractors, securing energy vassalization of Europe, depopulating Ukraine for resource extraction, and framing Putin with false flag operations to prevent peace.
Sanctions as Silencing: The Death of Free Inquiry
The EU’s sanctions against Colonel Jacques Baud represent medieval outlawry in Brussels bureaucracy. Baud faces asset freeze and travel ban across 29 European countries. He was never charged with crimes. His listing cites appearances on disapproved media platforms and his “unbelievable assertion” that Ukraine engineered its own invasion, which is simply accurate summary of Arestovych’s publicly available 2019 interview documenting Ukraine’s positioning for sacrifice.
The EU has sanctioned 59 academics, journalists, and analysts for “advancing Russian propaganda”. Their crimes include quoting Ukrainian officials, citing Burns’ cables, mentioning Istanbul peace talks, documenting Ukraine’s sacrifice, criticizing Gaza policy, and criticizing French involvement in Africa. When establishments can no longer defend policies on merits, when they can’t justify Ukraine’s systematic sacrifice for institutional interests, they criminalize criticism.
The Mission: Trump’s Strategic Pivot vs. CIA’s Forever War and Ukraine’s Continued Sacrifice
The December 28, 2025 CIA false flag operation crystallizes the fundamental conflict in American foreign policy: Trump’s strategic realism that would end Ukraine’s sacrifice versus the permanent security apparatus’s ideological commitment to Forever War requiring Ukraine’s continued depopulation and destruction.
Trump’s logic is brutally simple and strategically sound:
Western Hemisphere Secured: Operation Absolute Resolve on January 3 eliminated Venezuela’s Maduro regime and secured Caribbean energy. ExxonMobil’s Guyana operations produce 900,000 barrels daily, heading to 1.5 million barrel capacity. America’s energy position in its own hemisphere is unassailable, no need to sacrifice Ukraine for energy security.
Europe Can’t Defend Itself: Decades of NATO underfunding (1-1.5% GDP spending while free-riding on American security), Green Party energy disasters producing 66-cent-per-kilowatt-hour electricity, migration crisis spending, and structural economic dysfunction mean Europe cannot credibly defend itself even if it wanted to. Trump’s National Security Strategy explicitly states “stark strategic realities prevent the United States from being primarily focused on the security of Europe”. Europe’s policy failures don’t justify Ukraine’s sacrifice.
Russia Sufficiently Weakened: Three years of grinding attrition warfare has accomplished the strategic objective, weakening Russia for the coming China competition. Russia’s economy has been redirected toward wartime production, hundreds of thousands of military-age males are casualties, and Moscow’s conventional capabilities are substantially degraded. The mission is accomplished. Further bleeding Ukraine provides diminishing returns and serves only institutional interests, not strategic ones.
China Is the Priority: The existential competition is with Beijing, not Moscow. Continued entanglement in Ukraine diverts resources, attention, and military capacity from Indo-Pacific positioning. Trump wants to pivot. The CIA wants Forever War. Ukraine continues to be sacrificed for that institutional preference.
The permanent security apparatus’s logic is institutionally self-serving and requires Ukraine’s continued sacrifice:
Defense contractors enjoying fifteen-fold stock appreciation need continued weapons procurement funded by Ukraine’s destruction. European Union bureaucrats need Russia as scapegoat for catastrophic energy and migration policies, with Ukraine as the mechanism. Neoconservative ideologues need regime-change vindication in Moscow, regardless of Ukrainian cost. Corporate interests need Ukrainian depopulation to facilitate $10-12 trillion resource extraction, the sacrifice must continue until population is sufficiently depleted. The vast Brussels apparatus needs “Russian propaganda” justification for criminalizing dissent about Ukraine’s sacrifice.
So when Trump negotiated peace on December 28 that would finally end Ukraine’s sacrifice, the CIA staged a false flag operation framing Putin to give Russia justification for rejecting peace. When Trump secured Venezuela on January 3, removing any American need for European energy markets, the permanent security apparatus recognized its window closing. Trump’s Monroe Doctrine revival (securing the Western Hemisphere, abandoning Europe to its fate, pivoting to China, ending Ukraine’s sacrifice) makes strategic sense. It serves American national interests and Ukrainian survival.
It doesn’t serve CIA institutional interests requiring Ukraine’s continued depopulation and destruction. Hence the false flag operation framing Putin.
Ukraine has been systematically sacrificed (its population depleted by roughly 10 million people (25% of pre-war population), its infrastructure destroyed, its resources positioned for Western corporate extraction) not to resist Russian aggression but to serve Western institutional interests that required prolonged conflict, European scapegoating, defense contractor profits, and resource extraction conditions created through depopulation. Trump’s peace initiative threatened to end that sacrifice before the depopulation and destruction were complete. The CIA responded by framing Putin with fabricated assassination theater to derail peace and ensure Ukraine’s sacrifice continues.
The evidence is documentary and undeniable. Burns warned in 2008 that Ukrainian NATO membership would provoke forceful response, Ukraine was positioned for sacrifice. Merkel admitted Minsk was fraudulent delay tactic preparing Ukraine for that sacrifice. Arestovych explained in 2019 that Ukraine’s strategy was provoking invasion, knowingly positioning Ukraine for sacrifice. Bennett, Turkish officials, and Nuland confirmed Western powers sabotaged Istanbul peace talks that would have spared Ukraine’s sacrifice. Trump secured Venezuela and Guyana, removing any American need for European energy markets or continued Russian confrontation or Ukraine’s sacrifice. And CIA operatives staged a false flag operation framing Putin precisely when Trump’s peace initiative would finally end Ukraine’s sacrifice.
Both Russia and Ukraine were steered toward war through deliberate Western provocations and deceptions. Neither wanted this conflict (both were maneuvered into positions where escalation became, from their perspectives, the only rational response. Ukraine has been systematically sacrificed) its people killed, displaced, its population depleted by 25%, for Western institutional interests having nothing to do with Ukrainian sovereignty, security, or survival. Trump’s December 2025 peace initiative threatened to end that sacrifice.
The CIA’s false flag operation wasn’t about American national security. It was about institutional preservation and ensuring Ukraine’s continued sacrifice. Trump had removed the strategic rationale for continued Ukraine conflict by securing Western Hemisphere energy. The permanent security apparatus responded by framing Putin with fabricated assassination theater to force continued confrontation Trump neither wants nor needs, and Ukraine can no longer survive.
When Colonel Baud can’t buy food because he quoted Oleksiy Arestovych documenting Ukraine’s positioning for sacrifice, you know you’re living under a regime that fears its own documented record more than any enemy’s disinformation. The press corps has become press corpse, not a corpse that died, but one that kills anyone attempting actual journalism about how this war was deliberately manufactured, how Ukraine was systematically sacrificed, and why Trump’s peace serves both American interests and Ukrainian survival while CIA’s false flag operation framing Putin serves only bureaucratic preservation requiring Ukraine’s continued depopulation.
The propagandists are in Brussels, Berlin, London, and Washington. They’re terrified you’ll ask why Trump’s Monroe Doctrine pivot makes strategic sense while their Forever War requires Ukraine’s continued sacrifice. And they’ll sanction, smear, silence, and stage false flag operations framing foreign leaders to prevent anyone from asking.
Trump, Putin, and Zelensky may all want peace. But the CIA, Pentagon neoconservatives, EU bureaucrats covering their policy catastrophes, defense contractors enjoying record profits, and corporate interests eyeing Ukraine’s $10-12 trillion in minerals need Forever War, and Ukraine’s continued sacrifice serving their institutional interests.
And they’ll do whatever it takes to get it, including framing foreign heads of state with fabricated assassination theater while their own President, having just secured America’s energy future in Venezuela and Guyana, negotiates peace that serves actual American national interests and Ukrainian survival rather than bureaucratic empire preservation requiring Ukraine’s depopulation through systematic sacrifice.
The December 28 CIA operation reveals the truth: America’s permanent security apparatus will fabricate attacks, frame foreign leaders, and sacrifice entire nations to prevent peace.
Ukraine is the sacrifice. Ten million people minus 25% of its pre-war population, killed, displaced, or fled. Infrastructure destroyed. Resources positioned for Western corporate extraction once depopulation is complete. All to serve Western institutional interests having nothing to do with Ukrainian sovereignty, security, or survival.
Trump tried to end the sacrifice. Venezuela and Guyana secured, strategic rationale for continued conflict eliminated, peace negotiations initiated.
The CIA framed Putin to ensure the sacrifice continues. False flag operation on December 28 gave Russia justification for rejecting peace, ensuring Ukraine’s depopulation and destruction continue until conditions for resource extraction are complete.
The propagandists want you to believe Russia is the obstacle to peace. The truth is documented: Western powers engineered this war, sabotaged every peace attempt, and now stage false flag operations to ensure Ukraine’s sacrifice continues.
When you understand Ukraine has been sacrificed, systematically depopulated and destroyed, for Western institutional interests, everything else makes sense.
Sources:
Schulenburg-Diesen EU sanctions discussion Larry Johnson assessment CIA false flag operation Declassified UK: Boris Johnson sabotage IntellINews: Arestovych 2019 interview Declassified UK: Istanbul communiqué MROnline: Bennett on U.S. blocking peace Jordan Times: War was not unprovoked Wikipedia: Peace negotiations 2022-present Arestovych provocation strategy Global Affairs: Burns cable analysis WSWS: Merkel admits Minsk fraud TRT World: Von der Leyen corruption Common Dreams: Burns as diplomat TASS: Merkel on Minsk delay tactic Euractiv: Von der Leyen admits mistakes WikiLeaks: Burns cable 08MOSCOW265 Von der Leyen Pfizer texts DW: Von der Leyen phone wiped ZNetwork: Baud sanctions analysis IntellINews: EU Green Deal disaster WSJ: EU sanctions target free speech Stop These Things: German manufacturing destroyed Wikipedia: Jacques Baud Geopolitical Economy: Graham on Ukraine minerals CUA: American mess in Ukraine Wikipedia: Ukrainian refugee crisis Al Mayadeen: Graham urges more aid Cato Institute: America’s Ukraine hypocrisy RFE/RL: Ukraine population after war Reuters: Ukraine population collapse BBC: Nuland-Pyatt leaked call YouTube: 91 drones assassination attempt evidence Fox News: Trump Zelensky Mar-a-Lago meeting CNN: CIA assesses Ukraine not targeting Putin Moscow Times: U.S. finds Ukraine did not attack CNN: Takeaways from Trump meeting NY Times: Ukraine did not target Putin home Fox News: Putin residence attack video NBC: How US captured Maduro Le Monde: US months preparing Venezuela operation Guyana oil production exceeds 650 million barrels ABC: Trump’s Donroe Doctrine Al Jazeera: US attack on Venezuela unfolded ExxonMobil Guyana expands capacity NY Times Magazine: Theory gives Trump blank check Wikipedia: 2026 US intervention Venezuela Brazil Energy: ExxonMobil output rise Guyana TIME: Monroe Doctrine Trump re
Related reading
- The Managed War: How the West Built, Armed, and Prolonged the Destruction of Ukraine
- Two Russias, One Reality: There is Only One Truth, and It Isn’t The West’s (or Trump’s)
- Manufacturing War: How the West Built and Sold the Russia-Ukraine War
- Six Billion People Can See What CNN Won't Tell You: Ukraine Is Losing, and the West Wants the Killing to Continue
