By Sylvia Demarest, Substack, 8/26/25

In his inaugural address, President Donald J. Trump expressed a desire to be a “peacemaker and a unifier.” He emphasized that his administration would focus on restoring confidence and pride in the nation while aiming to “end wars and prevent new conflicts.” Trump pledged to create peace by building “the strongest military the world has ever seen,” indicating that military strength would be a key component of his approach to achieving peace. He stated, “Our power will stop all wars and bring a new spirit of unity to a world that has been angry, violent and totally unpredictable.” This is similar to past claims of “peace through strength” forced on every US president by militarism. To back up his pledge of “peace through strength”, the Big Beautiful Bill Act added $150 billion to the annual budget of the Department of Defense. This means the US has a trillion dollar defense budget, and funds an industrial weapons monopoly that produces overpriced, exceptionally complex weapons, while promoting the sale and use of these weapons around the world. By any measure, the creation of an entity this destructive, is objectively insane.

US diplomatic and military history since WW2 is a history of unbridled war and bullying. Every day, President Trump seems to issue a new threat. But the world is changing. Economic power is shifting to the east and military power may be shifting as well. In this environment, “building the strongest military the world has ever seen” may no longer be economically and technologically feasible. The old tactics of bullying and threating war could backfire. Also, the power of the national security must somehow be managed. Could this “tug of war” explain the never ending “Trumpian chaos”? Some observers think it does, I have no idea.

Every US president who has tried to promote peace has faced pressure and opposition. First from Military Keynesianism to both sell and use up the weapons the weapons manufacturers produce. Next, from a National Security State that pressures every president to promote war, sell weapons, and promote US hegemony. We are witnessing massive personnel changes in DC, both in the military hierarchy, in the intelligence community, and now even at the Federal Reserve; but the goal of these changes is unclear, and the power of the national security state cannot be discounted. Take the example of John Bolton, National Security Advisor in the first Trump administration. Formerly untouchable, Bolton’s home and office were just raided by the FBI. Bolton is typical of the deep state warmongers who populate Washington DC. His advice to President Trump during Trump’s first term serves as an example of the warmongering militarism US presidents must deal with. This is from Bolton’s book: The Room Where It Happened.

From James Carden: “In the span of just several pages, Bolton recalls that at one time or another he has counseled Trump to launch a preventive strike on Iran’s nuclear program; scrap the Paris climate agreement; tear up the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (aka the Iranian nuclear deal); pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty; withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council; defund the UN Relief Works Agency; prepare a preemptive strike against North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile program; and consider the idea of a sinister, conspiratorial link between Iran, North Korea, and Syria.”

Carden continues: “After a litany like this, one can’t help but recall MacGeorge Bundy’s observation about the hawkish Washington columnist Joseph Alsop, that he had “never known him to go to any area where blood could be spilled that he didn’t come back and say more blood. That is his posture toward the universe.”

Taking the President’s stated goal to be a “peacemaker “at face value, this essay examines the impact of US militarism on both the national debt and our society, looks at Trump’s claim to have ended 6 wars, and briefly examines the potential for peace given the ongoing wars and the prospect for new wars.

The cost of Militarism –the impact on the US national debt

According to up-to-date data from the US Treasury on the budget shortfall, the federal deficit in the United States for 2025, is $1,628,515,019,238. This number represents how much federal spending exceeded revenue for the last budget year. I am writing down the full number arithmetically so you can see the true size. The total US national debt now exceeds $37 trillion–that’s 37 plus 12 zeros! In 2024 debt service i.e. interest paid on the national debt toped 1 trillion for the first time in our history. These annual deficit numbers are greater than the Gross Domestic Product of most countries. The US finances this deficit by selling treasury securities. The ability to sell those securities, especially to foreigners, depends heavily on the dollar’s role as a global reserve currency, and on the US maintaining a strong economy.

There are three big ticket items in the federal budget that account for most of the spending: the cost of militarism, the cost of health care and pharmaceuticals, and beginning last year, the interest paid on the national debt. As Yogie Bera is claimed to have said: “if something can’t go on forever, it will stop.” What would the end of our ability to finance these budget deficits mean for the welfare of the people of our country? At best, a serious decline in our standard of living, at worst, hyperinflation, chaos and civil war.

If annual cost of the Department of Defense, over the last 80 years, is added to the cost of the wars the US has fought over that time, our current national debt represents the accumulated cost of this history of militarism and war. As discussed in several articles on this Substack, since the end of WW2 the US has been captured by militarism and has become economically dependent on military spending i.e. on “Military Keynesianism”. The societal cost, as represented by the decline of economic fairness, along with our growing economic and social dysfunction, has been documented on this Substack. The extreme concentration of wealth and power in the US (and the West) is a direct result of the triumph of militarism, along with neoliberalism (financialization), and the monopolization of the US economy. The resulting dysfunction is manifest at every level of our society, economic, social, legal, and psychological. Yet, sadly, despite the cost, blood lust, war, and greed, continues to dominate our government.

President Trump’s first 7 months

Air strikes: In the first seven months of his second term, Donald Trump has conducted 529 airstrikes in over 240 locations across the Middle East, Central Asia, and Africa. The exact number of countries targeted is not specified, but the airstrikes have been extensive, with a significant focus on regions like Yemen including the strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites. This is almost as many air strikes as conducted by the Biden Administration in four years.

Most of these strikes targeted the “Iran-backed Houthis “known as Ansar Allah, a Zaydi Shia Islamist political and military group from Yemen that emerged in the 1990’s. Ansar Allah opposes the Yemen government; they control part of Yemen and have blocked Israeli access to the Red Sea in opposition to the Israeli genocide in Gaza. They are one of the few groups to actively oppose Israel, despite the cost.

Ending 6 wars: President Trump claims to have ended 6 wars in the last 7 months. For these efforts, he wants a Nobel Peace Prize. Trump is actively lobbying the Nobel committee. Let’s examine each claim:

Egypt-Ethiopia: This goes back to Trump’s first term when the two countries were feuding over a huge hydropower dam. There was never a war nor a peace agreement over this issue.

India-Pakistan: Trump announced that the two nuclear power countries had reached a cease fire in May. India does not credit Trump with brokering the halt in the fighting.

The Congo and Rwanda: A treaty was announced by Trump in May, including opening the door to Western and US investment including potential access to certain minerals. Secretary of State Rubio was credited with bringing the parties together.

Cambodia-Thailand: Leaders of the two countries agreed to a ceasefire on July 28 after five deadly days of fighting, Reuters reported. Trump urged them to negotiate a ceasefire or else trade deals with the governments would stall.

Armenia-Azerbaijan: This one is complicated and potentially related to a new attack on Iran. The agreement includes what is called “The Trump Route”. This route splits Armenia and Azerbaijan and terminates on the border with Iran. The treaty gives the US exclusive development rights. This is not a move that will promote peace. Iran is opposed and the agreement would provide the US/NATO/Israel with access to both the Iranian border and the Caspian Sea, potentially destabilizing the entire area. Still, the two former Soviet republics and Trump signed a peace agreement at the White House on Aug. 8, ending a decades-long war. The leaders of the countries gave Trump ample praise for his efforts at the ceremony.

The sneak attack on Iran: In the boldest claim of all, Trump took credit for ending the 12-day war with Iran, a war he helped start! Trump announced on June 23 a ceasefire between the two countries after the U.S. joined Israel in bombing Iranian nuclear sites. I doubt that hostilities against Iran are over.

Ending The Ongoing Wars

Ukraine–Ending the Ukraine war in 1 day: There is zero evidence that the positions of either Russia or Ukraine have budged since the Alaska meeting on the 15^th, or after the White House meeting with Zelensky and the 7 representatives of the EU on the 18^th. The parties are still far apart, and the war will continue so long as the US and NATO continue to provide money, weapons, and targeting support to Ukraine. In a speech last Sunday marking Ukrainian independence, Zelensky pledged not to give up land for peace, and to reclaim Crimea by force. Regarding Russia, there were suggestions that maybe Putin will relent and not insist that Ukraine withdraw its forces from Zaporizhzhia and Kherson should Ukraine Russian withdraw from the Donbass, as a prelude to a ceasefire. Unfortunately, Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, did not support this claim in a recent interview. At the White House meeting on the 18^th, Zelensky reiterated his position that all territory, including Crimea must be returned to Ukraine, and Russia be forced to pay billions in reparations. This proposal will not end the war.

On August 7^th Gallup published polling results showing that 69% of Ukrainians favored a “negotiated end to the war as soon as possible”. This is a radical change from 2022 when only 22% supported a negotiated end to the war.

For those of you interested in the history anti-Russian meddling by the CIA in Ukraine, I recommend an essay by Kit Klarenberg: “Declassified: The CIA’s Covert Ukraine Invasion Plan.” Without going into details, the article discusses the planning that went into promoting a civil war in Ukrainian, creating the conditions that forced Russia to intervene.

Perhaps the Alaska meeting was designed to defang or delay the demand by Senator Lindsey Graham that the US return to tariff and sanctions threats. These threats did not go over well with India, Brazil, and China.

Ukraine continues to be supported with money and arms. Ukraine has been promised long-range missiles from the US and NATO countries, assuming they are presently available for delivery. Ukraine has also been promised assistance in building missiles in Ukrainian. One missile factory was just destroyed by Russia. Meanwhile, Ukrainian drones and missiles have had some success in impacting oil supplies and prices within Russia with drone strikes. It is claimed that some of these drones may have been fired from Finland and/or the Balkans–dangerous if true.

Opening Communications with Russia: There are many reasons other than ending the Ukraine war for the US to reopen communications with Russia. Communications were completely cut off by the Biden Administration when the war began in February of 2022. Even in the height of the Cold War the US and Russia communicated with each other. Cutting off communications was dangerous and unnecessary.

One big reason for the US and Russia to communicate is the Artic and its resources. Remember, the US offered to buy Greenland and suggested that Canada become the 51^ststate? Look at a map–if this were to happen, the US and Russia would share a border with the Arctic of almost equal size and would dominate the region. Right now, Russia is far ahead of the US in developing the Arctic’s potential. Russia has military bases there, oil fields, and operates very effective ice breakers giving her year-round access.

Then there are other resources and expertise Russia possesses. Rosatom has perfected the nuclear fuel cycle, meaning nuclear waste can be reprocessed and reused. Rosatom also builds advanced nuclear facilities. Meanwhile, China has built and is operating a Thorium molten salt reactor that will not melt down. If the US can partner with Russia, we can greatly expand our use of nuclear power.

Otherwise, there is little evidence of concrete change in the US/Russia relationship.

Israel–The ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing of Gaza and the West Bank: All modern wars are horribly destructive and everything possible should be done to prevent them. One of the most unbearable conflicts today is the ongoing destruction of Gaza and the ongoing starving of two million Palestinian people, if many Palestinians still survive.

This war is a prime example of what money and unaccountable power can accomplish. Both the Biden and Trump administrations have been directly involved in supporting and facilitating this genocidal war, and in helping silence those who are opposed. Congressional delegations from both political parties traveled to Israel this summer and were photographed with Netanyahu. This is despite the fact that what is happening in Gaza represents one of the most monstrous misdeeds of Western imperialism in the 21st century.

Slowly the façade of “western civilization” is being removed, and we are being forced to acknowledge that this ongoing atrocity is the result of deliberate policy–a policy supported not only by Zionism, but by the US, the UK, and much of the EU. It reflects an imperial policy that has been in effect for a long time. As Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli explicitly statedin the 19^th Century regarding the objective of the British Empire: “Gain and hold territories that possess the largest supplies of the basic raw materials. Establish naval bases around the world to control the sea and commerce lanes. Blockade and starve into submission any nation or group of nations that opposes this empire control program.”

Today, the Zionists of Israel, with the help of our government, are again using blockade and starvation as a weapon. The wealth and power of Zionist billionaires, including their ability to destroy anyone who dissents, has acted as a shield against accountability.

The destruction of the indigenous population of Palestine may be another step in recently reiterated plan for “Greater Israel”. The goal of “Greater Isreal” is to rule the Middle East and its energy resources on behalf of Zionist and Western interests. War with Iran is needed to take control of Iran’s oil as part of “the plan” to counter and control China. To achieve these goals, several million Palestinians must die or be relocated, Lebanon, Syria, and parts of Egypt, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia must be conquered, and their occupants expelled to be replaced by Zionists.

This sounds crazy but replacement is happening right now in the West Bank. 25 Jewish settlers from Canada and the U.S. arrived in the occupied Palestinian territories today, moving into homes and land taken from Palestinians. “Taken from” means that violence was used to steal Palestinian property without paying any compensation. After all, 93% of Palestine has been stolen from Palestinians since 1948 without one penny of compensation being paid to any of the Palestinians who owned the land and homes. This is what wealth and power permits–the ability to act with complete impunity.

The prospect for new wars

War with Iran: There are indications that the Israeli/US war against Iran could begin again at any time. President Trump has threatened war if Iran does not end its nuclear program. Iran has refused to do this. War with Iran is could envelope the entire Middle East.

There were recent reports of Israel wanting to launch a preemptive war against Iran–with US weapons and support, of course. Israeli Colonel Jacques Neriah, a former intelligence official and a special analyst for the Middle East, warned on Sunday of an impending “second round” of war against Iran as Tehran weighs a revenge attack on Tel Aviv. “There is a sense that a war is coming, that Iranian revenge is in the works. The Iranians will not be able to live with this humiliation for long,” Neriah told Udi Segal and Anat Davidov on 103FM.

“Israel must launch a preemptive strike against Iran in its present state, as a large part of its military capabilities is paralyzed,” he added.

Let’s recall the events of the 12-day war that Israel started. Israel launched a sneak attack, while Iran was engaged in peace negotiations with the US. The sneak attack was designed to assassinate the entire Iranian civilian and military leadership–a decapitation strike that almost succeeded. Now, Israel wants the US to go to war with Iran to finish Iran’s destruction. Given Zionist power in the US, Israel may successfully goad the US into another war. After all, the US has been fighting Israel’s wars in the Middle East since 911. These are wars of choice, based on lies, that destabilized the Middle East, killed millions, caused in thousands of US casualties, and added trillions to our national debt. Why would the US fight another war for Israel?

Wars in this hemisphere: The Trump Administration has taken 2 actions that could lead to war in this hemisphere. This includes a possible war against Venezuela, or strikes against drug cartels in countries like Mexico, Columbia, and Venezuela.

Drug cartels: President Trump has signed a directive on the use of military force against drug cartels. Here’s the New York Times: “President Trump has secretly signed a directive to the Pentagon to begin using military force against certain Latin American drug cartels that his administration has deemed terrorist organizations, according to people familiar with the matter.”

“The decision to bring the American military into the fight is the most aggressive step so far in the administration’s escalating campaign against the cartels. It signals Mr. Trump’s continued willingness to use military forces to carry out what has primarily been considered a law enforcement responsibility to curb the flow of fentanyl and other illegal drugs.”

“The order provides an official basis for the possibility of direct military operations at sea and on foreign soil against cartels.”

“U.S. military officials have started drawing up options for how the military could go after the groups, the people familiar with the conversations said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive internal deliberations.”

War with Venezuela: The Trump Administration has placed a $50 million reward for the arrest of the president of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, and sent a flotilla of ships to threaten the county. President Trump last week ordered at least three Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyers, a submarine and other assets to head towards Venezuela. Earlier this week Reuters also reported that, in addition to the destroyers, 4,000 marines aboard an Amphibious Ready Group were also sent.

The US has been at odds with Venezuela for decades, and has supported coups and other regime change efforts, first against Hugo Chavez, and now against Nicholas Maduro. The cause is a wave of nationalizations of the oil industry and sanctions, resulting in defaults and the US seizing Venezuelan assets, including Citgo. The US has also supported various “governments in exile” using confiscated Venezuelan assets. One government in exile was headed by Juan Guaidó. The asset confiscation and debt defaults amount to over $18 billion. Bids are being taken now for a forced sale of Citgo.

Meanwhile, Venezuela has the largest oil reserves on earth totaling 303 billion barrels, larger that Saudi Arabia at 267 barrels. US refiners are optimized to use this heavy crude; they need and continue to buy Venezuelan crude. US refiners, working for years with Citgo and Venezuela, spent billions on refineries to process this crude. The sanctions the US imposed on Venezuela has hurt margins because alternatives from Canada and Mexico do not work as well in these refineries. Venezuelan crude is a strategic asset for US refiners. These refiners include some of the largest oil companies in the world.

It is difficult to understand why this flotilla of war ships, along with marines, are being sent to Venezuela given the success of recent diplomatic negotiations that resulted in the resumption of the oil trade. This resumption marks a significant shift in bilateral energy relations after years of sanctions and restricted trade, and has created a pathway for Venezuelan oil tankers to once again deliver their cargo to U.S. refineries. Venezuelan crude is on its way to the US–why does the US need to go to war with Venezuela?

Conclusion

So far there is no peace and not much unity. Ongoing wars have not been ended, and several countries face new threats of war. At some point the people of the United States will have to step in and impose sanity on the warmongers if we are to survive as a nation. This Substack has spent the last 5 months outlining how neoliberalism, militarism, and monopolization has so concentrated wealth and power that most people can no longer afford the cost of living. Our emphasis should be on restoring economic fairness and opportunity, not starting a world war. War is no longer a realistic option and our emphasis on militarism increasingly represents a waste of precious assets. Modern war holds the potential to destroy civilization itself. I keep saying–drive around and imagine bombs exploding all around you–this will happen unless we come to our senses as a nation.

The President of Russia, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, has discussed his dealings with 4 US Presidents since 2000. President Putin reported that while the US president changed, the foreign policy of the US did not. Worse, President Putin reported that every US president he dealt with was unable to carry out the agreements they reached after returning to the US.

Perhaps this is because the decision to go to war with Russia was made well before the Maidan coup of February 2014 and western warmongers were waiting for the opportunity to go to war with Russia? Well, they have had their opportunity. As a result of the Ukraine war, the West has forced Russia, once again, to become a great power with global reach. Unlike the US and the West, Russia has the resources and the industrial capacity to sustain a war economy.

The goal of western militarism was outlined by the Rand Corporation in 2019–to overextend and unbalance Russia. While this has yet to happen to Russia, the West now seems overextended and unbalanced. Meanwhile, Russia continues to increase her industrial capacity. This Russophobic hatred of Russia has damaged the economies of the European community, yet the leaders of Europe’s largest economies refuse to demand a peaceful solution to the war in Ukraine.

If the oil reserves of Russia, Iran, Venezuela and the arctic are added together, the outlines of a plan to control the world economy and sustain US hegemony becomes clear. Given the growing power of Russia and China, the US and the West appear to have lost the opportunity to achieve such a plan.

There are other dangerous considerations at work that demand peace. The US is running dangerously low on stockpiles of vital conventional weapons. This could limit US options for conventional war. The lack of conventional weapons could lead to the use of nuclear weapons–not by Russia, China, Iran, or Venezuela–but by the United States and/or Israel. This means that the risk of nuclear war is currently greater than most people realize. It is time for peace to prevail. Is President Trump serious about peace? Does Trump, or any US President, have the power to make peace? We are about to find out.

---

By Brian McDonald, Substack, 9/3/25

There are moments in history when you can almost hear the hinge creak and Tuesday’s news that Russia and China have finally signed a binding agreement on the Power of Siberia 2 (a 50 billion cubic metre pipeline through Mongolia carrying Arctic gas eastward) is one of them.

Unlike the existing line out of Irkutsk, which feeds off reserves to the north of Mongolia, this new artery will carry the Yamal fields, the same gas that helped keep Germany’s factories humming for half a century. What once fuelled Western Europe’s rise will now stoke Beijing’s ambitions as a scheme long stalled by Chinese wariness suddenly becomes reality. Maybe Beijing has finally decided to heed its own ancient proverb: distant water cannot quench a nearby thirst.

Putin, closing out his China trip on Wednesday, underlined the point. Gas through Power of Siberia 2, he said, will be sold at market rates, with no “friendship discounts” for Beijing, whatever the Western press insists. Of course, “market rates” in Beijing’s lexicon are a different animal and the Chinese will try to drive them down toward their own domestic benchmarks.

It’s hard to exaggerate how much the map tilts with this shift, because for decades Russian gas was the bedrock of Germany’s might as an exporter and the hidden muscle that gave Western Europe its edge. For example, this fuel ran at an average of €13–22 per megawatt hour in the last “normal years” of 2018 and 2019. By contrast, in the first half of this year, the same benchmark was €41. Brussels can roar about values and thunder on about sanctions till its lungs give out, but numbers don’t bend to rhetoric.

Nevertheless, the sceptics have a point because fifty billion cubic metres is a sliver beside the 150-odd bcm Gazprom used to pump west each year. China won’t fill the EU’s shoes overnight, but the real shift here is in leverage. Western Europe has lost not just the gas but its standing as Moscow’s anchor customer and that mantle now slips easily to Beijing; on terms Berlin would have killed for. It’s another old proverb brought to life: hoist a rock in rage, only to let it fall on your own foot.

None of this means the deal is a bonanza for Russia because, in an ideal world, its companies would have sold to both east and west, playing them off to drive up returns. The EU’s decision to tear up that balance means Moscow forfeits income; but it loses far less than Western Europe does. For Russia, Power of Siberia 2 offers stability: a guaranteed outlet, even if the prices end up being close to Chinese domestic levels. For Western Europe, the outcome is instability: with higher bills, weaker security of supply, and vulnerability to every winter storm or accident that might close an LNG port in Texas or Qatar.

Even with the advent of Power of Siberia 2, Russia will sell in total about 106 bcm a year to China; still a long way shy of the 150–160 bcm Western Europe once bought. While European countries always paid premium prices, China drives harder bargains so the new project simply won’t bring the profits the old westward flows once did.

Bloomberg put it plainly on Wednesday: the pipeline “will turn the global LNG market upside down” and imperil Washington’s dreams of global energy dominance. If Chinese demand winds up being met by fixed Russian volumes, that will mean up to 40 million tonnes of LNG Beijing will no longer require; half of last year’s imports, although that remains a projection. It is hard to overstate the significance for US exporters, who had counted on China as their growth market.

Of course, the timing’s no accident here given Trump has swung around tariffs like a golf club while Xi has answered in kind, slapping levies on American LNG. And while the White House fumes, Beijing openly takes delivery of its first cargo from Russia’s sanctioned Arctic LNG-2; a move as brazen as it is calculated. China realises that betting on tankers through the Strait of Hormuz is gambling on a choke point the US Navy could close at any moment. And if there’s a fight over Taiwan, that artery will get cut, which leaves only one supplier able to promise steady lifeblood: Russia, with its pipelines over land and its immense reserves.

That truth has finally outweighed Beijing’s old nerves about leaning too heavily on Moscow, and leaving itself vulnerable to any political changes in the Kremlin. Something obviously altered the calculation, maybe it was Brussels’ latest lectures or perhaps Trump’s renewed threats but either way, EU leverage has drained away, and China walks off with a hell of a deal.

And here’s the bitterest irony: a project that started with Willy Brandt in the 1960s (Ostpolitik, the dream of tying East and West together by trade) now lies dead in the ditch. What’s left now is a cut-down continent, severed from the eastern pipe that kept its factories competitive, run by leaders who’d rather wave their fists than accept the facts staring them in the face. Moscow, by contrast, has read the weather and understands that when the wind shifts, you’re better off erecting windmills rather than stacking up sandbags.

And when you look at the frontline players today it can only make you wonder how a region which has produced some of humanity’s greatest ended up with this lightweight bunch of leaders. Von der Leyen, Macron and Merz talk like knights on a crusade but as most of Western Europe’s economies struggle, all they’ve achieved is spiralling costs and a half-continent shackled to LNG at twice the price

While Beijing quietly inks its contracts, Brussels keeps itself busy with morality plays. And nobody’s bills get lighter for all the posturing. Like an old man yelling at a cloud, to borrow a famous Simpsons’ line.

The EU has managed to pull off one of the greatest self-owns you could ever imagine. It’s tossed away the thing that carried its post-war prosperity; the quiet certainty that tomorrow’s power would be there, steady and affordable, same as today’s. That assurance has now crossed to Beijing and it’ll be only when the lights stutter, or bills climb higher, that Western Europeans feel the weight of what their leaders cast overboard in zeal.

By Kit Klarenberg, Substack, 8/25/25

All my investigations are free to read, thanks to the enormous generosity of my readers. Independent journalism nonetheless requires investment, so if you value this article or any others, please consider sharing, or even becoming a paid subscriber. Your support is always gratefully received, and will never be forgotten. To buy me a coffee or two, please click this link.

August 1st marked the 50th anniversary of the Helsinki Accords’ inking. The event’s golden jubilee passed without much in the way of mainstream comment, or recognition. Yet, the date was absolutely seismic, its destructive consequences reverberating today throughout Europe and beyond. The Accords not only signed the death warrants of the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact, and Yugoslavia years later, but created a new global dynamic, in which “human rights” – specifically, a Western-centric and -enforced conception thereof – became a redoubtable weapon in the Empire’s arsenal.

The Accords were formally concerned with concretising détente between the US and Soviet Union. Under their terms, in return for recognition of the latter’s political influence over Central and Eastern Europe, Moscow and its Warsaw Pact satellites agreed to uphold a definition of “human rights” concerned exclusively with political freedoms, such as freedom of assembly, expression, information, and movement. Protections universally enjoyed by the Eastern Bloc’s inhabitants – such as free education, employment, housing and more – were wholly absent from this taxonomy.

There was another catch. The Accords led to the creation of several Western organisations charged with monitoring the Eastern Bloc’s adherence to their terms – including Helsinki Watch, forerunner of Human Rights Watch. Subsequently, these entities frequently visited the region and forged intimate bonds with local political dissident factions, assisting them in their anti-government agitation. There was no question of representatives from the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact, or Yugoslavia being invited to assess “human rights” compliance at home or abroad by the US and its vassals.

As legal scholar Samuel Moyn has extensively documented, the Accords played a pivotal role in decisively shifting mainstream rights discourse away from any and all economic or social considerations. More gravely, per Moyn, “the idea of human rights” was converted “into a warrant for shaming state oppressors.” Resultantly, Western imperialist brutality against purported foreign rights abusers – including sanctions, destabilisation campaigns, coups, and outright military intervention – could be justified, frequently assisted by the ostensibly neutral findings of “human rights” defenders such as Amnesty International, and HRW.

Almost instantly after the Helsinki Accords were signed, a welter of organisations sprouted throughout the Eastern Bloc to document purported violations by authorities. Their findings were then fed – often surreptitiously – to overseas embassies and rights groups, for international amplification. This contributed significantly to both internal and external pressure on the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact, and Yugoslavia. Mainstream accounts assert the conception of these dissident groups was entirely spontaneous and organic, in turn compelling Western support for their pioneering efforts.

US lawmaker Dante Fascell has claimed the “demands” of “intrepid” Soviet citizens “made us respond.” However, there are unambiguous indications meddling in the Eastern Bloc was hardwired into Helsinki before inception. In late June 1975, on the eve of US President Gerald Ford signing the Accords, exiled Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn addressed senior politicians in Washington, DC. He appeared at the express invitation of hardcore anti-Communist George Meany, chief of the CIA-connected American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO). Solzhenitsyn declared:

“We, the dissidents of the USSR don’t have any tanks, we don’t have any weapons, we have no organization. We don’t have anything…You are the allies of our liberation movement in the Communist countries…Communist leaders say, ‘Don’t interfere in our internal affairs’…But I tell you: interfere more and more. Interfere as much as you can. We beg you to come and interfere.”

‘Political Aberration’

In 1980, mass strikes in Gdansk, Poland spread throughout the country, leading to the founding of Solidarity, an independent trade union and social movement. Key among its demands was the Soviet-supported Polish government distribute 50,000 copies of Helsinki’s “human rights” protocols to the wider public. Solidarity founder-and-chief Lech Walesa subsequently referred to the Accords as a “turning point”, enabling and encouraging the union’s nationwide disruption, and growth into a serious political force. Within just a year, Solidarity’s membership exceeded over 10 million.

The movement’s inexorable rise sent shockwaves throughout the Warsaw Pact. It was the first time an independent mass organisation had formed in a Soviet-aligned state, and others would soon follow. Undisclosed at the time, and largely unknown today, Solidarity’s activities were bankrolled to the tune of millions by the US government. The same was true of most prominent Eastern Bloc dissident groups, such as Czechoslovakia’s Charter 77. In many cases, these factions not only ousted their rulers by the decade’s end, but formed governments thereafter.

Washington’s financing for these efforts became codified in a secret September 1982 National Security Directive. It stated “the primary long-term US goal in Eastern Europe” was “to loosen the Soviet hold over the region and thereby facilitate its eventual reintegration into the European community of nations.” This was to be achieved by; “encouraging more liberal trends in the region…reinforcing the pro-Western orientation of their peoples…lessening their economic and political dependence on the USSR…facilitating their association with the free nations of Western Europe.”

In August 1989, mere days after Solidarity took power in Poland, marking the first post-World War II formation of a non-Communist government in the Eastern Bloc, a remarkable op-ed appeared in the Washington Post. Senior AFL-CIO figure Adrian Karatnycky wrote about his “unrestrained joy and admiration” over Solidarity’s “stunning” success in purging Soviet influence in the country throughout the 1980s. The movement was the “centerpiece” of a wider US “strategy”, he revealed, having been funded and supported by Washington with the utmost “discretion and secrecy.”

Vast sums funnelled to Solidarity via AFL-CIO and CIA front the National Endowment for Democracy “underwrote shipments of scores of printing presses, dozens of computers, hundreds of mimeograph machines, thousands of gallons of printer’s ink, hundreds of thousands of stencils, video cameras and radio broadcasting equipment.” The wellspring promoted Solidarity’s activities locally and internationally. In Poland itself, 400 “underground periodicals” – including comic books featuring “Communism as the red dragon” and Lech Walesa “as the heroic knight” – were published, read by tens of thousands of people.

Karatnycky boasted of how the Empire was intimately “drawn into the daily drama of Poland’s struggle” over the past decade, and “much of the story of that struggle and our role in it will have to be told another day.” Still, the results were extraordinary. Writers for Warsaw’s NED-funded “clandestine press” had suddenly been transformed into “editors and reporters for Poland’s new independent newspapers.” Former “radio pirates” and Solidarity activists previously “hounded” by Communist authorities were now elected lawmakers.

Signing off, Karatnycky hailed how Poland proved to be a “successful laboratory in democracy-building,” warning “democratic change” in Warsaw could not be a “a political aberration” or “lone example” in the region. Karatnycky looked ahead to further neighbourhood insurrection, noting AFL-CIO was engaged in outreach with trade unions elsewhere in the Eastern Bloc, including the Soviet Union itself. So it was, one by one, every Warsaw Pact government collapsed in the final months of 1989, often in enigmatic circumstances.

‘Shock Therapy’

The “revolutions” of 1989 remain venerated in the mainstream today, hailed as examples of successful, largely bloodless transitions from dictatorship to democracy. They have also served as a template and justification for US imperialism of every variety in the name of “human rights” in all corners of the globe since. Yet, for many at the forefront of Western-funded, Helsinki Accords-inspired Warsaw Pact dissident groups, there was an extremely bitter twist in the tale of Communism’s collapse across Central and Eastern Europe.

In 1981, Czechoslovak playwright and Charter 77 spokesperson Zdena Tominová conducted a tour of the West. In a speech in Dublin, Ireland, she spoke of how she’d witnessed first-hand how her country’s population had benefited enormously from Communism. Tominová made clear she sought to fully maintain all its public-wide economic and social benefits, while purely adopting Western-style political freedoms. Given she’d risked imprisonment to oppose her government with foreign help so publicly, her statements shocked audiences.

“All of a sudden, I was not underprivileged and could do everything,” she sentimentally recalled of the eradication of Czechoslovakia’s class system. “I think that, if this world has a future, it is as a socialist society…a society where nobody has priorities just because he happens to come from a rich family,” Tominová declared. She moreover reiterated her vision and mission was global in nature – “the world of social justice for all people has to come about.” But this was not to be.

Instead, newly ‘liberated’ ex-Eastern Bloc countries suffered deeply ravaging transitions to capitalism via “shock therapy”, eradicating much citizens held dear about the systems under which they’d previously lived. Thrust into a wholly new world, hitherto unknown homelessness, hunger, inequality, unemployment and other societal ills became commonplace, rather than prevented by basic state guarantee. After all, as decreed by the Helsinki Accords, such phenomena didn’t constitute egregious “human rights” breaches, but instead an unavoidable product of the very political “freedom” they had aggressively promoted.

---

RT, 9/3/25

Russian President Vladimir Putin has concluded his four-day visit to China. Ahead of his departure on Wednesday, he held a major Q&A session, speaking to the media on a broad range of topics, including bilateral ties with Beijing, the potential settlement of the Ukraine conflict, international security architecture.

Here are the key takeaways from the press conference:

‘Very useful’ visit

The visit, which was the longest foreign trip for the Russian leader since 2014, combined multiple high-profile events and informal meetings with different leaders. Putin said the format had proven to be “very useful,” not only “good for meeting at the negotiating table but, more importantly, for holding many informal discussions on any issue of mutual interest in an informal and friendly atmosphere.”

“So, when we planned my visit, we did it so as to avoid moving a long distance many times. I would like to remind you that the schedule included the SCO summit, a trilateral Russia-Mongolia-China meeting, and a visit to the People’s Republic of China proper,” Putin told reporters.

Power of Siberia 2 pipeline

China and Russia have reached an agreement on the Power of Siberia 2 pipeline, concluding years of talks on the major project, Putin said. The resulting deal on the 50 billion cubic meter per year pipeline has left everyone “satisfied” and “pleased,” according to the Russian president. 

“This is not charity – we’re talking about mutually beneficial agreements based on market principles,” he stressed.

End of Ukraine conflict in sight?

The potential settlement of the enduring conflict between Russia and Ukraine might have drawn closer thanks to the position of the US, Putin said. President Donald Trump and his administration appear to have a “genuine desire to find the solution,” he noted.

“I think there is a certain light at the end of the tunnel. Let’s see how the situation develops. If not, then we will have to achieve all the goals set before us by force,” the Russian president said.

West shifting responsibility for Ukraine conflict

Asked about recent hostile remarks by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who called the Russian president a “war criminal,” Putin said it was merely a part of the strategy to shift western responsibility for the Ukraine conflict.

“I think that [Merz’s remark] was an unsuccessful attempt to absolve himself, maybe not himself personally, but his country and the collective West… of the responsibility for the tragedy that is currently unfolding in Ukraine,” Putin stated, adding that the Western European nations have been pushing the situation towards an armed conflict for a decade by “completely ignoring Russia’s security interests.” 

Putin ready to meet Zelensky

The Russian president reiterated his readiness to meet Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky. However, he once again underlined Moscow’s concern that Zelensky lacks legitimacy and questioned whether meeting him would actually be “meaningful.” 

“It’s a path to nowhere, to just meet, let’s put it carefully, the de-facto head of the [Ukrainian] administration. It’s possible, I’ve never refused to if such a meeting is well-prepared and would lead to some potential positive results,” Putin said. “If Zelensky is ready, he can come to Moscow, and such a meeting will take place.” 

On security guarantees

Putin dismissed rumors of discussions about “security guarantees” for Ukraine in exchange for ceding territories it claims as its own. The territorial issue was never the priority for Moscow, the Russian leader said. The special military operation has been a fight for “human rights, for the right of the people who live in these territories to speak their native tongue and live according to their culture and traditions,” the president stressed. 

“Security guarantees are natural, I often talk about this. We proceed from the fact that any country should have these guarantees and a security system, and Ukraine is no exception. But this is not connected with any exchanges, especially with territorial exchanges,” Putin explained.

***

Vladimir Putin answered media questions

Go to Kremlin website to see full transcript.

By Matt Taibbi, Substack, 8/28/25

Judicial Watch today [August 28th] announced lawsuits filed against the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), for failure to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests in the case of longtime Donald Trump adviser Michael Caputo. For those who think Russiagate as ancient history, welcome to its second chapter, about Biden-era surveillance:

Judicial Watch submitted the requests in response to information that Caputo’s email was the subject of a secret search warrant of his Google email account in September 2023, three weeks after he began working for the Trump 2024 presidential campaign…

“The evidence shows that the Biden FBI and Justice Department were spying on the Trump campaign. Caputo used his emails to help devise strategy for the Trump campaign, and the Biden gang was rooting through it all!” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The lawsuits show that the lawfare and spying against Trump was only paused. These records can’t be released soon enough.”

Earlier this summer, after FBI Director Kash Patel and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard began releasing documents exposing the original Russiagate probe as the product of manipulated intelligence and alleging a “treasonous conspiracy,” critics dismissed the matter as old news. Russiagate never ended for some, however.

Not only did Patel, Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino, and Regulatory Czar Jeff Clark all receive notices informing them of email monitoring from the last election cycle, but at least one longtime Trump aide is still under investigation by the administration he worked to elect.

A notice from Google in March told Caputo he’d been monitored by the FBI since September, 2023, weeks after he agreed to take on “Weaponization of Government” issues for the 2024 Trump campaign. In addition to Patel, Scavino, Clark, and himself, Caputo describes six other colleagues in a similar position. “If I know if there are ten, there are fifty,” says the garrulous Buffalo native with a radio voice. “The one thing I’m sure of is, I don’t know everything.”

Caputo hopes his lawsuit and efforts to get his case closed will jog something loose, from enforcement agencies he still doesn’t trust. “I think Kash and Dan and Tulsi have really big fish to fry,” Caputo says, “But the reason I’m bringing it up now is because my family has had enough. I want them to leave my family alone.”

The devout Catholic who nearly died of cancer during the scandal speaks of the original investigators as a spiritual horror. “These people,” he says, “are demons.”

The nightmare began on March 20, 2017. Caputo was in Moscow of all places, on a trip for his consulting business, staying at the Metropol hotel made famous by Master and Margarita author Mikhail Bulgakov. In the evening, a well-known American reporter called his cell.

“She said, ‘Michael, what the hell is this?’” Caputo recalls. “I said, ‘What do you mean?’ She said, ‘You just got name-checked in a House Intelligence Committee hearing by James Comey for being too close to Russia.’ I asked if she was kidding. She said, ‘I’m not kidding, where are you?’ I said, ‘Why do you need to know?’”

Caputo knew his life was about to be turned upside down. The Trump-Russia controversy was white-hot then. Four intelligence agencies concluded Russia meddled with the 2016 election to help Donald Trump. From there, the heads of anyone with even fleeting ties to Russia began rolling. National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was forced to resign after reported contact with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak. Attorney General Jeff Sessions had to recuse himself from Russia matters. And Caputo didn’t know it, but Comey that day just announced the existence of an FBI investigation into Trump’s “links” to Russia in hearings led by California congressman and Russia-hunter-in-chief, Adam Schiff.

Walking outside, Caputo found himself at the foot the Kremlin, a stone’s throw from the Metropol, staring at its red brick. He thought of his family and felt ill. “I lean over with both my hands on the wall, and I vomited all over the wall,” he recalls. “I’m thinking, ‘Oh God, oh God.’ I was retching for two or three minutes.” He got up, tried to clear his head, and ducked into a nearby Western bar to clean himself up. Before he could get to a bathroom, he saw a man at the bar staring at him. “I look at him, and he points at the bar TV. My face is on the TV.”

The critical exchange in Congress involved an exchange between California Congresswoman Jackie Speier and Comey.

“All right, let’s move on to someone else in that web,” the Bay Area’s Speier said. “His name is Michael Caputo. He’s a PR professional, conservative radio talk show host. In 1994, he moved to Russia… In 2000 he worked with Gazprom-Media to improve [President Vladimir] Putin’s image in the United States.” She paused. “Do you know anything about Gazprom, Director?”

“I don’t,” the head of America’s top counterintelligence agency said about the world’s largest natural gas company, and Russia’s largest company. Completing the ignorance loop, Speier incorrectly explained, “Well, it’s an oil company,” then went on.

“What possible reason would the Trump campaign have for hiring Putin’s image consultant? No thoughts on that, Director?”

“No thoughts.”

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/_rCa16v3HzA?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

About Caputo as “Putin’s image consultant”: in Caputo’s defense, Putin at the turn of the century wasn’t a full-blown villain in the American diplomatic community. Ex-Ambassador to Russia and leading Russiagate finger-wagger Michael McFaul at the time lauded Putin as a “bright counter” to the gloomy international picture. Future Canadian Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland called him a “kindler, gentler sort of Kremlin chief,” welcoming his “quick pat” to her “third-trimester belly.” Even Bill Clinton declared Putin a “man we can do business with.” Only the dwindling independent Russian press absolutely recoiled from him.

Like me, Caputo worked in Russia through the nineties and early 2000s. When we met, he was working on “democratization” projects in the Yeltsin years with USAID-funded organizations like the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, along with groups like the International Republican Institute (IRI), helping launch a Russian version of the “Rock the Vote” campaign.

He was also part of an expensive group U.S. effort to get Yeltsin re-elected, one eventually memorialized in headlines like “Yanks to the Rescue!” in Time and in Hollywood movies like the Jeff Goldblum/Lieb Schrieber vehicle Spinning Boris. “I was part of the original meddling team,” Caputo laughs. He recalls that meetings on that subject were also often attended both by high-level Democrats who’d later become leading Russiagate torch-bearers, and a translator named Konstantin Kilimnik. A 2020 Senate Intelligence Report would later allege that working with Kilimnik was “what collusion looks like.”

Caputo’s life went downhill quickly after that night in Moscow. He and friend Roger Stone would co-earn their own chapter in the report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, under the heading, “Other Potential Campaign Interest in Russian Hacked Materials.” History unfolded differently, but the header should have read, “FBI Informants Offering Russian Aid to Trump Figures Without Success.”

In May, 2016, months before the official opening of the Trump-Russia investigation, a mysterious stranger named Henry Greenberg approached a partner in his business, Zeppelin Communications, in May of 2016, asking if they would do PR for his restaurant. It turned out he didn’t want PR for his restaurant at all ( it was never built, according to a Miami Herald article), just an introduction to Caputo’s friend Roger Stone. “Henry Greenberg” was really Henry Oknyansky, a.k.a. Gennady Arzhanik, a.k.a. Gennady Vorovtsov, a career criminal who by his own admission was also an informant for both the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security:

A satirist couldn’t have invented this footnote character to the Mueller report. In 1993, while still in Russia, Greenberg-Oknyansky-Vorovstov posed as Gennady Arzhanik, the son of a Soviet war hero, Admiral Vasily Arzhanik. Using this identity, he induced a company called FinInTorg to fork over about $2.7 million for a shipment of canned goods. The moment money was transferred, he swiped it, then fled to America. In a 2002 article, Russia’s Kommersant Daily described him as having been “a fugitive from national and international justice for more than six years,” suspected in the theft of “over $50 million.”

This is the person who asked Caputo to introduce him to Roger Stone, in order to pitch a deal: information about Hillary Clinton laundering money, for $2 million. Stone asked how much money Hillary allegedly laundered. “Hundreds of thousands,” answered Greenberg/Oknyansky. “That isn’t much money,” laughed Stone. Greenberg reportedly said it wasn’t Stone’s money he wanted, but Trump’s. Mueller wrote that Stone “refused the offer, stating that Trump would not pay for opposition research.” The Special Counsel wasn’t impressed with the episode, saying it “did not identify evidence of a connection between the outreach… and Russian interference efforts.”

Mueller left out the detail about Greenberg’s history as a federal informant. Sort-of Russians with vague government or party ties offering dirt on Clinton to Trumpworld figures would be a consistent theme in the scandal. Registered FBI informant Felix Sater suggested that Trump attorney Michael Cohen push for a hotel deal in Moscow. Donald Trump, Jr.’s meeting with Russian lawyer named Natalia Veselnitskaya in search of information on Clinton was “at long last, the smoking gun,” according to the Los Angeles Times, but even NBC’s Ken Dilanian was later forced to consider the episode in a “new light” after it emerged that the information Veselnitskaya offered came from the P.R. firm Clinton hired, Fusion-GPS.

Stefan Halper, another FBI asset, nudged Trumpworld figures like Carter Page with provocative suggestions, like one to seek Russian funding: “I imagine you could probably find funds” and “you could do alright there” and my favorite, “Nobody needs to know exactly where it’s from”:

George Papadopoulos, sold in the papers like the New York Times as the Patient Zero of Russiagate, had an experience similar to Caputo’s. He was approached out of the blue by a mysterious Maltese professor named Josef Mifsud, who made extravagant claims about access to Russian information. Papadopoulos ended up a national villain just for mentioning the story to an Australian diplomat, who quickly fed the story to American authorities, after which the FBI’s “Crossfiure Hurricane” probe was officially announced on July 31, 2016. Like Caputo, Papadopoulos is convinced he was set up, and that only the release of records about American cooperation with foreign governments like our main “Five Eyes” partners (the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada) will clarify who Mifsud was and why he was approached.

“I’m not mad that this has not been revealed yet, because I believe it will be,” Papadopoulos says now. “Recent trips by Gabbard and Patel to the UK and Australia signal that there is momentum towards this transparency.” Sources have told me the Trump administration is indeed making inquiries to some of those countries about older communications involving Russiagate.

When the story of Caputo’s interaction with Greenberg became public, the question the press should have been asking is how and why an FBI informant was trying to sell Trump aides information in May of 2016, or why another FBI informant in Halper was “ingratiating himself” to Page at a London symposium on July 12th, when the FBI investigation didn’t begin until July 31st, ostensibly because of Papadopoulos. Instead, Papadopoulos became a New York Times cover subject, and Caputo and Stone were denounced for failing to mention Greenberg when the House Intelligence Committee asked if he’d been approached by any Russians during the campaign.

California Congressman Eric Swalwell zeroed in on this testimony, telling Yahoo! reporter Michael Isikoff that Caputo and Stone “lied through their teeth,” to “protect the fact that they were willing and eager to take a meeting with Russians” — Russians, plural — “who were offering dirt.” He added Stone was “communicating with individuals associated with the Russian hacks.” There was never evidence that Greenberg had real restaurant plans, let alone connections to Russian intelligence. Asked this week which “individuals” were “associated with Russian hacks” and how he knew that, Swalwell didn’t reply.

In 2019 Caputo — whose wife is Ukrainian — produced a documentary called, “The Ukraine Hoax.” The film, which Caputo insists was a low-budget affair funded via his attorney with “no Russian money for obvious reasons,” was made with a few key points in mind. Though it criticized the Trump impeachment over a call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as baseless, its main message was historical. “I made a movie about how we’re going to go to war and we better watch out,” he says.

The film also dug into the Hunter Biden-Burisma story, with one scene even showing Caputo standing in front of Burisma’s offices. It aired on One America News (OAN) a day after Joe Biden’s inauguration, on January 21, 2021, and is still up on Rumble:

Caputo’s plan was to have the movie run, do a publicity tour, then publish a book. “Covid hit and the plan was scrapped,” says Caputo. The book was eventually published, but in March, 2020, Caputo joined Trump’s government, working for the Department of Health and Human Services as a spokesperson at the outset of the pandemic. Within six months he was diagnosed with head and neck cancer. “Russiagate almost killed me,” he said. “It was 100% stress.”

Caputo stepped away from government. Government didn’t return the favor. On March 16, 2021, a few months into Biden’s presidency, the Director of National Intelligence released a National Intelligence Council report that identified “The Ukraine Hoax” as a product of the Russian Secret Services, by way of Ukrainian parliamentary member Andrei Derkach and the selfsame Kilimnik, with whom Caputo says he never got along, even when they were co-workers at the International Republican Institute in the nineties. “He wouldn’t buy me a drink in a bar in the nineties,” Caputo says. The key passage reads:

Derkach, Kilimnik, and their associates sought to use prominent US persons and media conduits to launder their narratives to US officials and audiences… They also made contact with established US media figures and helped produce a documentary that aired on a US television network in late January 2020.

The next day, March 17, 2021, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty identified Caputo as the subject of the report. Neither the NIC nor any of the media treatments explained what the basis was for connecting Caputo’s film and Derkach, Kilimnik, or Russia.

Two years later, considerably thinner but recovered, Caputo decided to re-unite with Trump and join his second re-election campaign. Asked what he’d like to work on, Caputo didn’t hesitate. Stung by the 2016 experience, he sent a memo on August 4th, 2023, headed, “SUBJECT: DIRECTING WEAPONIZATION REFORM.” He wrote to the campaign leadership:

This memorandum outlines a campaign strategy to develop and execute federal government reform policy, focused on transformation of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and more.

Five weeks later, on August 21, 2023, the U.S. Attorney’s office in the District of Columbia issued a classified subpoena to Google, demanding access to Caputo’s emails, subscriber information, billing and finacial information (including Google wallet), VOIP calls, data transfer volumes, and other records. He didn’t find out about this until March 18, 2025. In another preposterous plot-twist, he was by that time himself an advisor to the new U.S. Attorney of the District of Columbia, Ed Martin.

“I actually was notified that this was an investigation initiated by the US attorney in the District of Columbia while sitting in the office of the US Attorney for the District of Columbia,” he recalls.

The classification on Caputo’s subpoena tolled, so like Patel, Scavino, and Clark, Caputo received a notice from the company informing him his data had been collected.

Across the years, a huge range of people connected to Russiagate received similar notices. Congressional investigators on both sides of the scandal were monitored in leak investigations, from Senate staff looking into Russiagate’s origins like former Judiciary Committee Counsel Jason Foster to members of Congress like Swalwell and Adam Schiff, who were pushing the probe in the opposite direction. Mueller targets like Rick Gates, too, received Google notices post-factum, and figures like Page and Paul Manafort were monitored under FISA.

Even Tucker Carlson appeared victim to the not-uncommon Russiagate cocktail of “incidental” FISA collection and media leaks, when Axios in 2021 reported he was “talking to U.S.-based Kremlin intermediaries about setting up an interview with Vladimir Putin.” The amusing source: “People familiar with the conversations.” A later story by Charlie Savage of the New York Times hypothesized that the NSA “may have incidentally” captured his conversations without “intentionally targeting him as part of any nefarious plot.” Savage didn’t hypothesize about the intentionality or nefariousness of the leak.

“It was definitely part of Russiagate,” Carlson says. “The NSA read my texts and leaked the details to the New York Times. Ultimately they admitted it, but no one was ever punished. I rarely think about it, but it infuriates me every time I do.”

Since Russiagate started it’s become common to learn that intelligence agencies were either intentionally or incidentally collecting information even on politicians. A December, 2021 Inspector General’s report quietly disclosed in a footnote that a U.S. Congressman was the subject of “overly broad” and “non-compliant” FISA searches (it turned out to be Illinois Republican Darin LaHood). Current Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was physically monitored by Air Marshals under the TSA’s Quiet Skies program. The New York Times even just reported that the leak case involving John Bolton involved communications captured by a Five Eyes ally in the Biden years. Who isn’t under surveillance now?

Caputo’s notice read, saying, “Hello, Google received and responded to a legal process issued by the Federal Bureau of Investigation”:

In conjunction with news about other Google notices, he lost it. “Come on,” he says. “The future Director of the FBI? Dan Scavino, the one of the President’s best friends, and the member of the campaign? Me, a member of the campaign, and they popped me weeks after I send a memo on how to pursue a Weaponization of Government policy? That’s a huge mop-up operation.”

Caputo turned to Judicial Watch, which filed FOIA requests to the DOJ, FBI, and ODNI, asking for records of his case. All were ignored, prompting the lawsuits filed today. He worries that elements of the FBI and other agencies who brought the original cases are still in place, using spy tools far too easy to access, with too little oversight. The only thing that would even begin to justify any of this would be evidence of Russian money backing his movie, but Caputo is steadfast on that score. “It’s been four and a half years by now,” he says. “You think they’d have found some kind of Oleg.”

Fifty years after Watergate, the idea of spying on aides to presidential candidates, Congressional staff, journalists, even candidates and presidents no longer shocks much of the country. Can that pattern be reversed?