By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Lawmakers Mike Rounds and Angus King reported that Secretary of State Marco Rubio informed them that the leaked 28-point peace plan for Ukraine was essentially a “wish list” originating from the Kremlin, not the U.S. government. The plan, which critics see as a demand for Ukrainian capitulation, includes provisions such as halving Ukraine’s military and recognizing Russian control of occupied territories. Despite denials from Rubio and the State Department, the administration has faced scrutiny for the plan, with even Special Envoy Steve Witkoff raising suspicion regarding its origins. Trump has since stated the proposals aren’t final, and is allowing Ukraine to respond by Thursday.
Read the original article here
Okay, let’s dive into this… It seems like we’re discussing the alarming revelation that the Trump administration was caught, yet again, essentially passing off Russian-crafted ideas as its own. This isn’t just a minor slip-up; it’s a deeply concerning pattern that raises serious questions about the influence and integrity of the administration, specifically when it comes to Russia.
One particularly glaring instance revolves around the attempt to seemingly “mediate” between NATO and Russia. The sheer absurdity of this is almost comical, considering Trump’s often-stated skepticism of NATO and his well-documented affinity for Putin. How can someone who appears to undermine an alliance then turn around and offer to mediate between it and a perceived adversary? It’s a complete contradiction, pointing to a blatant disregard for established norms and alliances. Some speculate about underlying motivations, perhaps a desire to weaken NATO, but the optics are undeniably damaging.
Then there’s the story of the “peace plan”. This whole scenario is rife with issues. It appears the administration was essentially fed information from Russian sources, which was then presented as an American-led initiative. The fact that the proposed “peace plan” included demands that seemed to have been lifted straight from the Kremlin’s wish list, like dictating where the US could send its jets, is frankly stunning. The lack of basic proofreading skills and attention to detail, demonstrated by the nonsensical phrasing regarding fighter jet deployment, just highlights a level of incompetence or perhaps deliberate negligence that is hard to ignore. It is as if the plan was created through some type of AI translation and never checked over by anyone with any understanding of the situation. This doesn’t simply look like a case of someone being out of their depth.
The question of why this keeps happening is crucial. It suggests either a deeply entrenched naivete, extreme incompetence, or something far more sinister: deliberate collusion. Consider the timing of this, as some say it coincided with meetings between administration members and Russian figures. The connection feels far too convenient, creating a picture of a White House that was taking orders, or at the very least, readily accepting input from Moscow.
Looking back, there are many of these events throughout the Trump presidency. The history between Trump and Russia goes back quite a ways, with Trump’s first trip to Moscow occurring in 1987. During that trip, he talked to Larry King about why the US and NATO did not see eye-to-eye. The intelligence community, then and now, has had concerns about Trump’s character and vulnerabilities. A businessman with financial ties in Moscow, Trump was viewed as someone who might be ripe for exploitation. These factors raise the question of whether the administration was a willing participant in Russia’s agenda or simply lacked the will, knowledge, or foresight to resist.
There are even theories and jokes about the specifics of the “kompromat” that Putin may have on Trump. While we can’t definitively know the details, the fact that such speculation exists, and that some think it may be related to more than just the infamous “pee tapes”, speaks volumes about the level of distrust and suspicion surrounding the situation.
It’s clear that the Trump administration’s relationship with Russia was and continues to be a matter of considerable controversy and concern. The fact that there are so many instances of this happening, and the seeming ease with which Russian ideas were incorporated into US policy, paints a disturbing picture. It is a sign of a breakdown in the system, a failure of leadership, and a potentially dangerous subversion of American interests. The implications of this are significant and demand continued scrutiny and a commitment to upholding the integrity of American foreign policy.