By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ahead of a meeting with Ukrainian President Zelensky, Vladimir Putin, at the urging of White House envoy Steve Witkoff, warned President Trump against sending Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine during an October 2025 phone call. Witkoff, in a pre-call conversation with a top Russian foreign policy aide, coached Putin on how to appeal to Trump’s ego to ensure a positive call. Following the call, Trump decided against providing the missiles, despite prior consideration and pressure from Zelensky. This decision came even as the Pentagon had approved the transfer of the missiles, and despite Ukraine’s interest in leveraging the weapons.
Read the original article here
The core of the matter centers around the assertion that Putin influenced Trump’s decision to withhold Tomahawk missiles from Ukraine, a move allegedly orchestrated by Witkoff. That’s the crux of this whole situation. It’s a claim that raises serious questions about the extent of foreign influence on a former U.S. president and the potential compromise of national security interests. It’s a scenario that’s really, really concerning, and demands a closer look.
The narrative paints a picture of a close relationship, one where Putin seemingly holds sway over Trump’s decisions. The supposed catalyst for this particular event, the withholding of Tomahawks, was a phone call, and that call wasn’t just random – it was set in motion by Witkoff. The transcripts, or the information from them, allegedly show that Putin directly asked Trump not to send the missiles, and Trump complied. That’s pretty damning.
Now, let’s talk about Witkoff. According to this information, he’s more than just a real estate mogul; he’s allegedly a key player, possibly an intelligence asset, with ties to Russia and possibly the Middle East. Some of the information suggests that he may even be Trump’s handler. This role allegedly gave him the leverage to influence Trump’s foreign policy decisions. If this is true, it raises the specter of serious ethical and legal breaches, as well as a possible treasonous act.
The impact of Trump’s actions, should this be true, is far-reaching. The decision to withhold Tomahawks, if driven by foreign influence, could have had serious consequences for Ukraine’s defense capabilities and, by extension, the ongoing war. If this scenario played out, it could be interpreted as a betrayal of U.S. interests and an alignment with a geopolitical adversary.
The implications of this alleged deal are far-reaching. Trump’s behavior has often been described as easily swayed, and if this is true, it paints a picture of a president easily manipulated by external forces. If Putin really could just tell Trump what to do, that’s incredibly troubling.
There’s a strong sentiment that Trump was manipulated. Some opinions suggest that Trump’s personality, his ego, and his vulnerability to flattery made him an easy target for manipulation. This perception contributes to the overall narrative of a president who prioritized personal gain or the approval of foreign leaders over the interests of the United States.
Witkoff is labeled as a traitor by many. The perception is that Witkoff, through his actions and allegiances, betrayed the trust placed in him and undermined the security of the United States. The information suggests that his actions should be met with legal repercussions. There is also a great amount of condemnation against Trump, with many calling him a puppet.
There is deep frustration expressed about the apparent lack of action. There’s a palpable sense of anger and bewilderment that this hasn’t already been handled. The frustration is directed at Congress and the legal system, with many feeling that those in power have failed to hold Trump and his associates accountable for their actions.
The closing sentiment is one of extreme disillusionment. It reflects a growing distrust in the political system. It speaks to a feeling that the country is at a dangerous crossroads, where those in power are either unwilling or unable to protect the interests of the nation.