Why are the globalists so opposed to Trump’s efforts to make peace in Ukraine?

The narrative over Ukraine reveals not only how hard the war economy will fight to rescue its system from peace, but also how the hardest sell these days is hard reality.

The Trump administration’s moves toward peace in Ukraine – and elsewhere – have attracted widespread criticism from within and without the globalist establishment.

As the U.S. government now threatens to “walk away” from Ukraine if its seven-point peace plan is rejected, a new battle line is being drawn between permanent war and propaganda – and the urgent reality demanding radical change from the globalist business as usual.

Trump has proposed an immediate ceasefire, no NATO membership for Ukraine, and for Russia to keep the territories it has taken during the war – with the U.S. to recognize Crimea as Russian. The proposal for peace has been met with outrage, and even accusations of betrayal. Yet the peace deal appears to be a simple recognition of reality. What’s the problem?

Dan Davis’ deep dive into Ukraine

In his deep dive of April 23, Dan Davis helps to explain why reality is so controversial and the mention of peace akin to treason. He joins German journalist and academic Patrik Baab to show how the pro-war faction in the U.S. and Europe have fought their own line in the media for well over a decade.

Davis, whose appointment to a National Intelligence post was recently sabotaged by another war faction – that of the Israel lobby – has learned the personal consequences of contradicting the globalist war narrative. So has Baab – who was fired from his academic post in 2022 for the crime of journalism.

Baab had traveled to Donbass to research a now published book he discusses with Davis. Titled On Both Sides of the Front, it informs his discussion of the “NATO-backed Maidan coup” in 2014 and the media campaign which has sold this war to Westerners as yet another defence of democracy abroad – as in Iraq. According to Foreign Policy, Ukraine is a magical democracy which “still functions without elections.”

Having arrived at the time of the Russian-backed elections in Donetsk and Lugansk regions, Baab was accused on his return to Germany of having “legitimized” the votes and was dismissed and smeared in the German press.

Both Davis and Raab give important context to U.S. threats to “walk away” from Ukraine if a peace deal is not settled, showing the reason why “two different stories” are so often told “about the same events.”

Reality vs. fantasy, or life and death

In Western politics and media, one side is invested in the war and the other is not. This can also be seen as the factions of fantasy versus reality.

EU Chief Commissioner Ursula von der Leyen famously claimed in 2022 that Russia was cannibalizing “refrigerators and washing machines” to harvest microchips for its war machine, with the UK defense minister saying in early 2023 that Russian soldiers had been reduced to fighting with shovels. In the media, Ukraine’s victory was only a matter of time – which was money. Yours.

To keep this money flowing, the Western audience whose taxes provide it must be convinced there is good reason to keep sending it to Zelensky, who cannot pay it back.

U.S./NATO started the war

As Baab explains, the reason why the global faction arranged this war was nothing to do with Ukraine – the objective was to collapse and balkanize Russia. This would give the globalist British state and its pro-war EU partners a new lease of geopolitical life, as well as shoring up their crippled economies with command of Russia’s near limitless natural resources.

A global war industry

Former U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken ran WestExec – a profitable war business consultancy, one of many which monetized forever war through influence peddling.

Former under-secretary of state Victoria Nuland, who managed the 2014 coup in Ukraine, has her own family business of war. It is called “the Kagan-industrial complex” after her husband arch-neocon Robert Kagan and his brother Frederick – whose ISW urges escalation in the talking points it supplies to pro-war outlets in the mainstream media. This network runs public relations for the wars its members start. Nice work if you can get it.

Russia has won

This is the reality behind the slogans of “Slava Ukraini” and the framing of the war as the defense – and inevitable triumph – of “democracy.” This fantasy narrative is now collapsing. Why?

In reality, Russia has won the war. As Baab points out, “Putin won the war. That means the West has to meet Putin’s proposals.”

This reality is a problem for the Western media which has sold every disastrous war of the last century as a win and a sacrifice in the defense of democracy. It is also a problem for the liberal-global elite, whose political capital is invested in the defeat of Russia.

U.S. will ‘walk away’ if no deal

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio – together with Vice President JD Vance – have said that if Trump’s seven-point plan is not accepted the U.S. will “walk away” from Ukraine – as retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor has consistently said they should.

Neither Rubio nor chief negotiator Steve Witkoff attended the London conference on April 23, at which Zelensky predictably rejected Trump’s seven-point peace deal.

Col. Macgregor told Judge Andrew Napolitano it was clear “Zelensky is not going to agree” to the proposed deal.

Why? It is based on reality. Macgregor agrees that the U.S. should walk away – reminding viewers “this war would never have happened had we not mightily supported this regime we helped into power in 2014.”

Why did the U.S. do that? “To attack Russia,” Macgregor says, “because the whole idea was to build up a Ukrainian battering ram and hurl it at Russia. Crazy.”

A frustrated and uncharacteristically alarmed Macgregor asks, “Why are we even involved?”

He suggests “the best President Trump can do is say ‘It’s over. I never wanted this. It’s not my war. I’m suspending all aid, I’m pulling out.’”

The former Trump adviser adds, “Well, he didn’t do that. What’s next? I’m not sure.”

“Whatever happens, we look ridiculous. Again.”

Macgregor adds that “at least we have had the sense to walk away. What’s important is to normalize relations with Moscow,” explaining that Zelensky’s claims to Crimea and the Russian regions now absorbed into Russia are “nonsense.”

Trump: recognizing reality?

The Trump administration has offered to recognize Crimea as Russian – as has been historically and actually the case. Trump himself has accused Zelensky of sabotaging the peace deal, as the unelected leader of Ukraine refuses this and other concessions made unavoidable by the fact that Russia has won the war.

“The situation for Ukraine is dire – He can have Peace or, he can fight for another three years before losing the whole Country. I have nothing to do with Russia, but have much to do with wanting to save, on average, five thousand Russian and Ukrainian soldiers a week, who are dying for no reason whatsoever.”

Trump laid the blame squarely on Zelensky – saying his impossible demands would simply prolong the killing, as well as resulting in total defeat.

“The statement made by Zelenskyy today will do nothing but prolong the ‘killing field,’ and nobody wants that! We are very close to a deal, but the man with ‘no cards to play’ should now, finally, GET IT DONE.”

In 2014, Crimeans voted “overwhelmingly” to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia. The territory was gifted to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic by Nikitia Khrushchev in 1954, though its population remained predominantly ethnic Russian.

Trump’s aim, as Alastair Crooke has pointed out, is far bigger than merely ending this war. The overall goal here is a reset of the global order – away from the death cult model of forever war, and toward stabilization and trade abroad to power national renewal at home. As Crooke notes, Trump “is ringed by a resolute domestic enemy front in the form of an ‘industrial concern’ infused with Deep State ideology, centered primarily on preserving U.S. global power (rather than on mending of the economy).”

Surrender to Russia?

Reports in the globalist media of a total surrender to Russia are overblown:

Trump countered the narrative of “concessions” to Russia with the stark riposte that Russia’s choice not to “take all of Ukraine” was a significant concession in itself.

As Alex Christoforou of The Duran noted, Trump’s position on Crimea presented the EU with a “choice,” which the globalist Financial Times says was “forced” upon the pro-war bloc.

The EU had a choice, support US or Ukraine. EU chose Ukraine, and rejected Trump's plan for US recognition of Crimea.

The EU rejects the US decision to recognize Crimea.
“Crimea is Ukraine,” EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas told French news agency AFP.

Via FT: "For… pic.twitter.com/cdfWGEoULO

— Alex Christoforou (@AXChristoforou) April 25, 2025

Russians propose alliance with U.S.

So what do the Russians think?

A remarkable response from the Russians shows some of their perspective. On April 16, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) published a call for Washington and Moscow to unite against the EU – and to thwart the moves of the British state to escalate and prolong the war.

According to RT, the statement said, “The US and Russia are natural allies against ‘Eurofascism’ and the tyrannical tendencies prevalent in Western European countries.”

From its beginning, the EU has tended to be a totalitarian entity, ruled over by unelected, globalist-minded bureaucrats and elites determined to crush the unique cultures and sovereignty of its member states. Many have warned that that it was created to be the springboard for a New World Order tyranny.

The SVR sounded an optimistic note, suggesting Russian and U.S. officials are working together to secure peace.

“The agency said that ‘foreign expert circles’ are hopeful that Russia and the US will work together to prevent ‘a new global conflict’ and confront ‘possible provocations both from Ukraine and from the “maddened Europeans” traditionally urged on by Great Britain.’”

As Davis and Baab discussed, neither Steve Witkoff nor Marco Rubio attended the recent London conference on Ukraine – which Macgregor said was pointless due to Zelensky’s refusal to accept reality.

British state vs. Trump peace deal

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has joined the EU in “contradicting” Trump, according to the Daily Telegraph. Starmer says the unelected Zelensky must have a say in any deal – and Zelensky is of course saying no.

The Daily Telegraph blasted Trump’s seven-point peace plan as “surrender, capitulation, betrayal, appeasement,” saying “Trump’s deal” to secure peace “would plunge the world into war” by “rewarding aggression” and “overturning [the] rules-based order.”

War is the rule of the ‘rules-based order’

It was the “rules-based order” which expanded NATO in the 1990s, against George Kennan’s 1997 warning of this “fateful error” – which would provoke war with Russia.

Kennan predicted that moving NATO’s borders 300 miles eastward would make conflict with Russia inevitable, describing it as “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.”

This was no error. The collapse and plunder of Russia and its absorption into the global empire appears to have been the intention all along.

War has been the rule on which the rules-based order is based, as independent journalists have reported for years. This is why it is no surprise to hear the remnants of that order in Europe and in Britain demonize any attempts at peace – as treason.

British state determined to prolong war

The British state is determined to escalate and prolong the war. GrayZone journalist Kit Klarenberg has documented the consistent efforts of the UK Deep State to do so and returned this week with a report detailing how a secret government unit has been directing military operations in Ukraine and in Russia – supporting a strategy of continuing the war even after any ceasefire.

Does Trump have a plan?

Despite Colonel Macgregor’s complaint that he sees “no grand strategy” in the Trump administration, it is clear that the old one is dissolving. As the Trump administration’s peace proposals show, the one which will replace it relies on securing normalized relations – and trade – with Russia, instead of a perpetual march to world war trailered in Western media as inevitable.

The Trump administration has invited howls of outrage for its “surrender” to Russia in pursuing direct negotiations to end the war in Ukraine, as well as over its secret talks from before day one with Iran to avert a major conflict planned by another war faction: the Israel lobby.

The move away from the economic model of the liberal global system is a move away from an economic model of permanent war. This forever war model is waged against your Christian civilization at home in the mass media and the culture it transmits, as much as its business model bombs nations abroad.

Significant interests are being mobilized to prevent this move. Trump needs a win on the domestic front in this perilous moment of the detransition from globalism. The U.S. can no longer afford these foreign commitments – it is facing financial, moral, and diplomatic bankruptcy as the fantasy project of world domination hits real life limits.

The narrative over Ukraine reveals not only how hard the war economy will fight to rescue its system from peace, but also how the hardest sell these days is hard reality.

Related Topics:#FrankWright #LifeSiteNews #UkraineRussiaWar TrumpEffortsToMakePeaceInUkraine

Up Next

History in the making? Trump, Zelensky hold meeting about Ukraine war in Vatican ahead of Francis’ funeral

Don't Miss

As PM Poilievre would cancel summer holidays for MP’s so Ottawa can finally get back to work

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

ICE raids California pot farm, uncovers illegal aliens and child labor

Business / 12 hours ago

103 Conflicts and Counting Unprecedented Ethics Web of Prime Minister Mark Carney

Business / 18 hours ago

Most Canadians say retaliatory tariffs on American goods contribute to raising the price of essential goods at home

conflict

US airstrike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Was it obliteration?

Published on July 5, 2025

Todayville

A satellite image of the Isfahan nuclear research center in Iran shows visible damage to structures and nearby tunnel entrances from recent US airstrikes. / Satellite image (c) 2025 Maxar Technologies.

Seymour Hersh

The US attack on Iran may not have wiped out its nuclear ambitions but it did set them back years

I started my career in journalism during the early 1960s as a reporter for the City News Bureau of Chicago, a now long-gone local news agency that was set up by the Chicago newspapers in the 1890s to cover the police and fire departments, City Hall, the courts, the morgue, and so on. It was a training ground, and the essential message for its aspiring reporters was: “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.”

It was a message I wish our cable networks would take to heart. CNN and MSNBC, basing their reporting on an alleged Defense Intelligence Agency analysis, have consistently reported that the Air Force raids in Iran on June 22 did not accomplish their primary goal: total destruction of Iran’s nuclear-weapons capacity. US newspapers also joined in, but it was the two nominally liberal cable channels, with their dislike—make that contempt—for President Donald Trump, that drove the early coverage.

There was no DIA analysis per se. All US units that engage in combat must file an “after-action report” to the DIA after a military engagement. In this case, the report would have come from the US Central Command, located at MacDill Air Force base in Tampa, Florida. CENTCOM is responsible for all US military operations in the Middle East, Egypt, Central Asia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. One US official involved in the process told me that “the first thing out of the box is you have to tell your boss what happened.” It was that initial report of the bombing attack that was forwarded to DIA headquarters along the Potomac River in Washington and copied or summarized by someone not authorized to do so and sent to the various media outlets.

The view of many who were involved in the planning and execution of the mission is that the report was summarized and leaked “for political purposes”—to cast immediate doubt on the success of the mission. The early reports went so far as to suggest that Iran’s nuclear program has survived incapacitation by the attack. Seven US B-2 “Spirit” bombers, each carrying two deep-penetration “bunker-busters” weighing 30,000 pounds, had flown without challenge from their base in Missouri to the primary target: Iran’s Fordo nuclear facility, concealed deep inside a mountain twenty miles north of the city of Qom.

The planning for the attack began with the knowledge that the main target—the working area of the nuclear program—was buried at least 260 feet below the rocky surface at Fordo. The gas centrifuges spinning there were repeatedly enriching uranium, in what is known as a cascade, not to weapons-grade level—uranium-235 isotopes enriched to 90 percent—but to 60 percent. Further processing to create weapons grade uranium, if Iran chose to do so, could be done in a matter of weeks, or less. The Air Force planning group had also been informed before the bombing raid, most likely by the Israelis, who have a vast spy network in Iran, that more than 450 pounds of the enriched gas stored at Fordo had been shipped to safety at another vital Iranian nuclear site at Isfahan, 215 miles south of Tehran. Isfahan was the only known facility in Iran capable of converting the Fordo gas into a highly enriched metal—a critical early stage of building the bomb. Isfahan also was a separate target of the US attack on Fordo, and was pulverized by Tomahawk missiles fired by a U.S. submarine operating in the Gulf of Aden, off Yemen.

As a journalist who for decades has covered the nascent nuclear crisis in the Middle East, it seemed clear to me and to informed friends I have in Washington and Israel that if Fordo somehow survived its bunker-buster attack, as was initially suggested, and continued to enrich more uranium, Isfahan would not. No enrichment, no Iranian bomb.

I’ve been frustrated and angry at cable news coverage for years, and that includes Fox News, too, and decided to try and find the real story. If your mother says she loves you, check it out. And I checked out enough of it to share.

I was told that “the first question for the American planners was how big was the actual workspace at Fordo? Was it a structure? We had to find that out before we got rid of it.” Some of the planners estimated that the working space “was the size of two hockey rinks: 200 feet long and 85 feet wide.” It came to 34,000 square feet. The height of the underground working space was assumed to be ten-and-a-half feet—I was not told the genesis of that assumption—and the size of the target was determined to be 357,000 cubic feet.

The next step was to measure the power of the dozen or more bunker-busters that were planned to be “carefully spaced and dropped” by the US B-2 bombers, using the most advanced guidance systems. (During one high-level session in Washington, one of the Air Force planners was asked what would happen if the B-2’s guidance systems were corrupted by an outside signal. “We’d miss the target” was the answer.)

Subscribe to Seymour Hersh

I was assured that even if the rough estimate of the working space at Fordo was far off, the bombers targeting Fordo each carried a 30,000-pound bomb with an explosive payload of as much as five thousand pounds, which was more than enough to pulverize the mythical hockey rinks, or even a much larger working space.

Some of the bombs were also outfitted with what is known as a hard target void sensing fuze, which enabled the bombs to penetrate multiple layers of a site like Fordo before detonating. This would maximize the destructive effect. Each bomb, dropped in sequence, would create a force of rubble that would cause increasing havoc in the working areas deep inside the mountain.

“The bombs made their own hole. We built a 30,000-pound steel bullet,” the official told me, referring with pride to the bunker-busters.

Most important, he said, was that there were no post-strike hints detected of radioactivity—more evidence that the 450 pounds of enriched uranium had been moved from Fordo to the reprocessing site at Isfahan prior to the US attack there, which was code-named “Midnight Hammer.” That operation included a third US strike at yet another nuclear facility at Natanz.

“The Air Force got everything on the hit list,” the official told me. “Even if Iran rebuilds some centrifuges, it will still need Isfahan. There is no conversion capability without it.”

Why not, I asked, tell the public about the success of the raid and the fact that Iran no longer has a potential nuclear weapon?

The answer: “There will be a top-secret report about all of this, but we don’t tell people how hard we work. We tell the public what we think it wants to hear.”

The US official, asked about the future of the Iranian nuclear program, quickly acknowledged that “there is a communication problem” when it comes to the fate of the program.

The intent of the strike planners, he said, “was to prevent the Iranians from building a nuclear weapon in the near term—a year or so—with the hope they would not try again. The clear understanding was that there was no expectation to ‘obliterate’ every aspect of their nuclear program. We don’t even know what that is.

“Obliteration means the glass—[eliminating] Iran’s nuclear program—is full. The planning and the results are the glass is half-full. For Trump critics, the results are the glass is half-empty—the centrifuges may have survived and four hundred pounds of 60 percent enriched uranium are missing. The bombs could not be assured to penetrate the centrifuge chamber . . . too deep, but they could cover them up [with rocks and other bomb debris] and in the process cause unknown damage to them.

“Whether the 60 percent [enriched uranium] was there or not is irrelevant because without centrifuges they cannot refine it to weapons grade. Add to this the research and refinement and conversion from gas to metal—required for a bomb—at Isfahan are also gone.

“Results? Glass is half-full . . . a couple of years of respite and uncertain future. So now Trump’s defense is Full Glass. Critics? Half-empty. Reality? Half-full. There you are.”

The immediate beneficiary of the use of US force in Iran will not be a more placid Middle East, but Israel, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Israeli Air Force and army are still killing massive numbers of Palestinians in Gaza.

There remains no evidence that Iran was on the cusp of becoming a nuclear power. But as the world has known for decades, Israel maintains a significant nuclear arsenal that it officially claims does not exist.

This is a story not about the bigger picture, which is muddled, but about a successful US mission that was the subject of a lot of sloppy reporting because of a reviled president. It would have been a breakthrough had anyone in the mainstream press spoken or written about the double standard that benefits Israel and its nuclear umbrella, but in America that remains a taboo.

Subscribe to Seymour Hersh.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

conflict

Obama Dropped Over 26K Bombs Without Congressional Approval

Published on June 27, 2025

Todayville

By Martin Armstrong

@miss_stacey_
Biden, Clinton, Obama & Harris on Iran #biden #clinton #obama #harris #trump #iran #nuclear

♬ original sound – Stacey

Iran has been the target for decades. Biden, Harris, and Clinton—all the Democrats have said that they would attack Iran if given the opportunity. It appears that Donald Trump is attempting to mitigate a potentially irresolvable situation. As he bluntly told reporters: We basically — we have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the f‑‑‑ they’re doing.”

A portion of the nation believes Trump acted like a dictator by attacking Iran without Congressional approval. I explained how former President Barack Obama decimated the War Powers Resolution Act when he decided Libya was overdue for a regime change. The War Powers Act, or War Powers Resolution of 1973, grants the POTUS the ability to send American troops into battle if Congress receives a 48-hour notice. The stipulation here is that troops cannot remain in battle for over 60 days unless Congress authorizes a declaration of war. Congress could also remove US forces at any time by passing a resolution.

Libya is one of seven nations that Obama bombed without Congressional approval, yet no one remembers him as a wartime president, as the United States was not technically at war. Over 26,000 bombs were deployed across 7 nations under his command in 2016 alone. Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, and Pakistan were attacked without a single vote. Donald Trump’s recent orders saw 36 bombs deployed in Iran.

The majority of those bombings happened in Syria, Libya, and Iraq under the premise of targeting extremist groups like ISIS. Drone strikes were carried out across Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan as the Obama Administration accused those nations of hosting al-Qaeda affiliated groups. Coincidentally, USAID was also providing funding to those groups.

The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) was initially implemented to hunt down the Taliban and al-Qaeda after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Obama broadened his interpretation of the AUMF and incorporated newly formed militant groups that were allegedly expanding across the entire Middle East. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism believes there were up to 1,100 civilian casualties in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Thousands of civilians died in Syria and Iraq but the death toll was never calculated. At least 100 innocent people died in the 2016 attacks in Afghanistan alone.

The government will always augment the law for their personal agenda. The War Powers Resolution was ignored and the AUMF was altered. Congress was, however, successful in preventing Obama from putting US troops on the ground and fighting a full-scale war. In 2013, Obama sought congressional approval for military action in Syria but was denied. Obama again attempted to deploy troops in 2015 but was denied. Congress has to redraft the AUMF to specifically prevent Obama from deploying troops in the Middle East. “The authorization… does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat operations.” Obama attempted to redraft the AUMF on his own by insisting he would prohibit “enduring offensive ground combat operations” or long-term deployment of troops. He was met with bipartisan disapproval as both sides believed he was attempting to drag the United States into another unnecessary war.

The United States should not be involved in any of these battles, but here we are. Those living in fear that Donald Trump is a dictator fail to recognize that past leadership had every intention of sending American men and women into battle unilaterally without a single vote cast.