I think we are seeing the makings of another impeachment scenario involving Ukraine. The last one (which, as you know, was Donald Trump's first of two) was about him asking that country's president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, to help him cheat to defeat Joe Biden. If there is another, it may concentrate on Trump's interference of Ukraine's sovereign right to exist.

Namely, that it looks like he sabotaged Zelenskyy's war of survival.

On Wednesday, Russia attacked Ukraine's energy infrastructure during what was supposed to have been a ceasefire arrangement. In a barrage including 39 ballistic missiles, the highest number in one attack since the 2022 invasion, the Times reported "some 600,000 people in Kyiv lost power, renewing concerns about access to heat during the upcoming winter."

On the same night, Ukraine's defense ministry reported it lost access to Starshield, which is a military variant of Starlink, a vital asset in combat communications. As of Wednesday, the Times said, "the disruption has not been explained. But the network ... is paid for by the Pentagon, leading Ukrainians to believe that the restrictions came from the White House."

By Thursday, it was explained. And the Ukranians appear to have been right. Two US officials and a "Western official" told Reuters "the order to limit a satellite system used by Ukraine for battlefield communications and drone operations came from inside the White House."

All this is happening in the context of diesel.

Russia finances the war by selling diesel, so Ukraine has been destroying its capacity to refine it. That has reduced the global supply, which has increased the price – and the price of everything else along with it. In turn, that has put pressure on Trump and the GOP.

They are facing voters enraged by the extortionate cost of living. As a "harcore Republican" in Georgia told MS Now: "Out of any president I’ve ever lived under, I've hurt more under Trump than any other president. Fuel prices, beef prices. I mean, he’s cutting our throats."

Most of Trump's trouble stems from his illegal war against Iran, and Iran's decision to react by throttling the Strait of Hormuz. But as Rory Johnston explained, Ukraine's strikes are definitely affecting diesel prices. "Russia is normally the world's second largest diesel exporter, shipping around 1 million barrels per day," the commodities researcher said.

"Today, they're barely above 100,000 barrels per day. That loss of Russian diesel has absolutely helped drive diesel prices to their current near-all-time-highs."

Trump seemed to act decisively last week. The AP said he announced that Russia will supply "more than 300,000 tons of diesel, followed by an additional 500,000 tons in November and 1 million tons 'immediately thereafter.' Russia will deliver an additional 3 million tons."

As impressive as it sounds, 4.8 million tons of diesel is about nine days of supply in America. It will not make a dent. So why did Trump lift restrictions in place for six years? We didn't get anything. Neither did Ukraine. According to the Times, Russia didn't concede anything.

Which brings me back to sabotage.

Did someone in the White House pull the plug on Starshield/Starlink on the same night Russia launched more ballistic missiles at Ukraine than it had before? Did that person, or persons, work in coordination for anyone? And what was their goal? And for whom did they do it? Sabotaging Ukraine serves neither Ukraine's interests nor the interests of the United States, as vast majorities of Americans still prefer to live in a world in which nations have sovereignty and can't be consumed by neighboring nations ruled by fools and degenerates.

Was it done merely because Vladimir Putin asked?

We deserve to know.

So yes, I think we are seeing the makings of another impeachment scenario involving Ukraine. I mean, there are a billion reasons to impeach Trump, but this one is a big one, as it's part of America's global role. In the context of an affordability crisis, it might be a story about how the president was so incompetent, so corrupt, so broken that he made enemies of everyone, including "hardcore Republicans." In the end, all he had left was his friend, Putin.

And he didn't have even that.

President Donald Trump's CIA director traveled to Moscow to assess the Russia-Ukraine war, and his verdict came with a warning to Vladimir Putin.

Trump sent the CIA director, John Ratcliffe, in August to meet Russian security officials, The Atlantic reported Friday, citing sources familiar with the talks.

Ratcliffe presented his conclusion that neither side is winning the war, noting that Russian forces had failed to make any meaningful gains, but Ukraine had also failed at pushing them out of occupied territory.

American and Russian spies communicated through an intelligence back channel, called "the channel," to speak privately.

While Ratcliffe did not meet Putin personally, his intelligence chiefs documented his message for the Russian president.

U.S. officials believe that Putin is being misled by his advisers, and they hope the information would get him to negotiate with Ukraine to end the war.

Ratcliffe later spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky about the Moscow visit while they refueled their planes in Ireland in September, according to the report.

This comes as Trump’s public statements seem to contradict his own spy chief's conclusion about the conflict.

Trump, who has never had a good relationship with the Ukrainian president, recently became a more vocal critic, accusing him of refusing to make a peace deal and saying he is "more difficult to deal with than Putin."

Trump also attacked Ukraine's renewed strikes on Russian oil refineries, calling them "a disgrace" and blaming them for the rising cost of fuel globally, while most experts believe the Iran war is mostly responsible for the price hike.

Trump also insisted that Ukraine could choose other targets in direct contradiction to Zelensky’s repeated warnings that Russia is using their fuel to attack Ukraine.

The International Energy Agency report suggests Ukraine has been successful in its campaign. Per the report, Russian refinery throughput fell to its lowest level in more than 20 years in June, roughly 30% below the previous year.

Its analysis also found that Ukrainian strikes hit a Russian refinery about once every three days during the first eight months of 2026. Russian gasoline production fell by 20% and diesel production had fallen by about 30%, which led to export restrictions to preserve supply.

Meanwhile, The Atlantic reported that the CIA gives Ukraine intelligence to help them identify and hit russian energy targets. A Baltic intelligence officer said the operations are "much more aggressive" than under Biden.

After Trump criticized Zelensky, Ukraine's defenses faced restrictions on Starlink satellite services, which disrupted its ability to operate defensive drones.

Zelensky has repeatedly said Ukraine is willing to end the war, but Russia has no plans to stop.

Ratcliffe's Moscow mission seemingly contradicts Trump’s statements about Ukraine and Russia, as his relationship with Putin sparks anger across both sides of the political aisle.

At a time of instability around the world — from U.S. President Donald Trump's war against Iran to the Russia/Ukraine war — geopolitics experts are worried that another major crisis will occur if Mainland China invades Taiwan. Conservative Washington Post columnist George Will examines that possibility in his Friday column, warning that the fallout would be enormous if such an invasion occurs.

"Deterrence employs military, diplomatic, economic, technological and political measures to prevent wars," Will explains in his Post column. "The number of times deterrence has failed approximately equals the number of wars history has seen. Deterrence failed to protect Ukraine against aggression, the consequences of which are slight compared with those that would follow a failure to deter Chinese President Xi Jinping from invading Taiwan, or attempting to coerce its surrender by measures (intended to be) just short of war. Xi has ordered his military to be able to seize Taiwan in 2027."

Will adds, "Deterring this involves influencing one person: Xi. But the myriad variables involved are staggering."

The Never Trump conservative makes his points by quoting geopolitics expert Eyck Freymann's 2026 book "Defending Taiwan: A Strategy to Prevent War with China."

Freymann, a Hoover Institution fellow at Stanford University in California, believes that an invasion of Taiwan by the People's Republic of China would not only be terrible for Taiwan, but for many other countries as well.

"He believes that U.S. abandonment of Taiwan 'isn’t an option,'" Will notes. "The 'disastrous, cascading consequences' of Taiwan's forced submission to Beijing would include the collapse of U.S. credibility, Beijing's domination of its Indo-Pacific neighbors, including their involvement in the global economy, and an incentive for Japan and South Korea to acquire nuclear weapons."

The conservative columnist adds, "Taiwan, a vibrant democracy of 23 million, is the world's most important supplier of the high-end chips that power economic modernity, including 90 percent of the most advanced chips powering artificial intelligence … Xi's constant 'gray zone' operations — economic, legal, cyber and sociocultural — include military violations of Taiwan's territorial waters and airspace. Xi might hope that these, perhaps supplemented by a quarantine (Beijing's control, justified as 'customs enforcement,' of Taiwan's international trade), will, Freymann writes, 'incrementally establish the norm that Taiwan no longer has full practical control over' its global economic interactions."

According to Freymann, deterring a Mainland China invasion of Taiwan means showing Xi that the United States could "decisively" defeat China in an "all-out air-naval war" near China.

"Freymann says — startlingly, without elaboration — that by seizing Taiwan, Xi could make himself 'untouchable by rivals in his old age,'" Will observes. "It is relevant, and unsettling, that Xi, who visits here next week, has thrived in such a high-risk, high-stakes, uncivilized political milieu."

The war was not going well for Russia, and it hasn't been since Ukraine stopped holding back its strikes. Until recently, Russia’s offensive was failing, and its battlefield momentum had largely stalled. That's when President Donald Trump threw Vladimir Putin a lifeline.

New York Times columnists David French and Thomas Friedman both detailed in their columns Thursday that Trump's "deal" for a small purchase of diesel from Russia will go down in history as not only a strategic misstep but it will only add to Trump's support of Russia over the years.

“He will enter the history books in the chapter on leaders who sold out their country’s democratic values to appease a dictator," Friedman blasted in his column.

French agreed, "He is turning the American government against Ukraine, funding Russia and — perhaps worst of all — playing directly into Putin’s theory of victory.”

Trump's purchase, he continued, will put roughly $4 billion into the Russian coffers at a time that Putin desperately needs it. Meanwhile, a March CNN report alleged that Russia has been helping Iran by giving the country access to its intelligence, including where Americans are positioned in the region. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made a similar claim in June, saying Russia helped Iran. A further September CNN report cited two of Trump's own officials, who told them that Russian spy satellites are feeding intelligence to Iran.

But Trump has made it clear that he simply doesn't believe it, Politico reported last week.

Then Trump falsely claimed there was a "deal" and a "ceasefire."

"Consider that for a moment. Trump wasn’t announcing a deal at all. There was no deal. He made it up and then demanded that both nations do what he said," French wrote.

Ukraine complied, pausing its bombing, while Russia did not.

"I don’t think he deserves a respite," said Sergey Lavrov.

To Ukraine, French said, "the message is clear: You are at our mercy.”

It comes after Russia had a very bad summer, he noted. Their offensive was an utter failure. In all of 2026, Russia has managed to gain about 100 square kilometers, under 39 miles.

The Kyiv Post reported Thursday that Zelenskyy said, "We're done." He announced his intention to continue bombing Russian oil infrastructure, particularly after Russia began intentionally striking civilians.

Friedman said that he's never bought into the idea that Trump is some kind of Russian agent or being paid by Putin.

"It is much worse. He simply does not cherish democracy. He cherishes money. And he has no problem selling the first for the second. When he acts in his own commercial interests, that’s his personal business. When he uses the American presidency to make a buck, it is our collective shame," said Friedman.

French agreed, saying it isn't "America First"; it's "Trump First."

He fears that under Trump's second term, the U.S. is "worse than unreliable" he called it "unhinged." However, it'll cost more than just the U.S. It'll impact the world, French closed.

In his Thursday column, former Homeland Security chief of staff Miles Taylor wrote that he thinks it's time that investigations into Trump's "collusion with Russia" be rerenewed.

President Donald Trump has supported a plan that involves giving Russia some sanctions relief in return for the release of political prisoners, a move that could cause his administration to be at odds with Ukraine, the European governments and certain Republicans in Congress.

According to a report by The Atlantic, the initiative was put forward by John Coale, Trump's envoy to Eastern Europe, and it’s still in its early phases. Coale said to the magazine that he mentioned the idea to Trump following their talks about the release of prisoners, including Russian journalist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Dmitry Muratov, and that the president had then agreed for him to go ahead with it.

According to the proposal, Moscow would set free dissidents, journalists and other prisoners, while Washington could reply by relaxing a number of its economic restrictions. In Belarus, Coale has previously employed a similar strategy, whereby U.S. negotiations led to the release of hundreds of prisoners as Washington waived some of its sanctions and looked into trade agreements.

As Coale told The Atlantic, “All this stuff works toward the possibility of peace. The more interaction, the more trade-offs — either economic, prisoners, or whatever — leads step by step toward, hopefully, peace.”

The proposal follows by only a few weeks on the back of Trump signing legislation that authorizes tougher sanctions against Russia and countries that are carrying on major economic transactions with Moscow. According to Reuters, the law permits tariffs of up to 100 per cent to be applied to imports from countries that maintain significant trade with Russia or Iran.

Some lawmakers have urged Trump to impose greater costs on Moscow over the war in Ukraine, and therefore a shift towards sanctions relief could lead to tension within Trump's own party, especially if Russia has not agreed to a cease-fire.

Republicans, such as Sen. Mitch McConnell, have argued for tougher actions against Russia, while all but seven House GOP members backed the sanctions Trump signed last month.

Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine's president, has also stated that sanctions should not be relaxed before the fighting is over. Speaking to The Atlantic, he said that he would attempt to “block” such a decision and cautioned the United Nations that greater trade with Russia could provide Moscow with more resources to keep the war going.

“When someone gives Russia more money through trade, they give this war more time,” Zelensky said.

The White House stated that Trump was still focused on arriving at a settlement. According to an official speaking to The Atlantic, the President and his team are firmly committed to carrying on a constructive role in bringing about an end to the war between Russia and Ukraine.

Coale's suggestion could also open the way for renewed business relations between the United States and Russia in the areas of energy, minerals and other commodities. The basis of his approach is the belief that economic engagement can reduce tensions and provide incentives for peace.

Ukraine, together with a number of European officials, has adopted the contrary view, stating that the sanctions should stay in place as long as Russia carries on its military campaign.

Serving as both secretary of state and national security adviser, Marco Rubio has a variety of functions in the second Trump administration. But one thing Rubio is staying away from, according to Financial Times' Edward Luce, is Jared Kushner and U.S. envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff's attempts at a Russia/Ukraine deal.

"There is a reason why Marco Rubio runs from the sound of gunfire," Luce writes in Financial Times. "Though he is America's secretary of state and national security adviser — the first to combine those roles since Henry Kissinger — Rubio can sense a losing bet or three. Whether that is trying to broker a deal between Russia and Ukraine, nuclear talks with Iran or fixing Gaza, he lacks the real estate background that President Donald Trump wants in his negotiators. Politicians typically crave the limelight. That Rubio is unbothered by being out of it tells us quite a lot."

Luce continues, "Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff do know real estate — and they are both billionaires who mix business with politics. This gives them credibility in speaking for Trump. That is partly why both (Russian President) Vladimir Putin and (Ukrainian President) Volodymyr Zelensky treated them with such respect on their fruitless trip to Moscow and Kyiv last weekend. They come with tote bags of promised 'win-win' investment booms that will flow from any deal. But their eyes might be bigger than their stomachs. Hammering out a deal that will stick is hard enough. If their true goal is dessert, however, they are likely to mess up the main course."

A "core Kushner-Witkoff tactic," according to Luce, is "to seduce their interlocutors with the lure of post-war bonanzas."

"Why should Ukrainians and Russians keep killing each other when they could be partnering with the U.S. to dig up critical minerals and build AI data centers?" Luce argues. "This misreads both men. Though estimates vary, Putin is worth a lot more than either of Trump's envoys, as well as Trump himself. Putin wants something that imagined post-ceasefire deals cannot buy, which is to reabsorb Ukraine into his cherished Russian motherland, in full or in part. Dessert is also not at the forefront of Zelensky's mind. His job is to defend Ukraine from Russia."

Luce adds, "In practice, business prospects keep Trump and his envoys in the game, not the other way round. Fixation on downstream benefits pushes them further from El Dorado."