As Reuters put it, intelligence agencies continue to warn that Putin “has not abandoned his aims of capturing all of Ukraine and reclaiming parts of Europe that belonged to the former Soviet empire.” That stands in stark contrast to public diplomatic messaging suggesting that peace talks are gaining traction.
And Reuters reported:
Russian attack targets Ukraine energy infrastructure after Miami peace talks
Rather than addressing the underlying intelligence assessment, Gabbard took a strikingly public (for a DNI) and combative approach to discrediting the reporting itself. First she posted this:
And then, a little while later, in response to a comment:
This rebuttal didn’t quote or point to specific classified assessments — it framed the entire Reuters piece as a narrative weapon deployed against current
Kremlin Reaction
Moscow quickly seized on Gabbard’s framing. A Kremlin spokesperson dismissed the Reuters assessment as “absolutely not true,” insisting that Putin has no intention of conquering Europe and reprising the familiar claim that NATO expansion — not Russian aggression — is the real source of instability.
In parallel diplomatic messaging, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov offered to “legally confirm” that Russia has no intention of attacking the EU or NATO — an implicit rebuttal to Western security concerns, delivered with the air of magnanimous reassurance rather than defensive denial.
And so, not surprisingly — but still significantly — Gabbard’s public dismissal of the Reuters reporting became a line of rhetorical reinforcement for the Kremlin’s own narrative.
In sum, the Director of National Intelligence of the United States had just functioned as a validating conduit for Moscow’s preferred framing: that Western intelligence warnings are exaggerated, that concern itself is the provocation, and that the true threat to peace lies not in Russian behavior but in acknowledging it too plainly.
That alignment need not be intentional to be consequential, because when an adversary’s talking points are echoed from the highest levels of the U.S. intelligence apparatus, the signal received in Moscow is not ambiguity, but opportunity.
And now we must consider Trump’s designs on Greenland:
Greenland is not a member of NATO, but it is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, which is a NATO member. The defense and foreign policy of Greenland are managed by Denmark, and Greenland has strategic importance for NATO due to its location in the Arctic. Wikipedia BBC
See:
Greenland outraged after Trump appoints envoy to make country ‘part of the US’
US president stated Louisiana governor Jeff Landry understands ‘how essential Greenland is to our national security’
Is this a plan to help Russia and US dominate this vital area of the Arctic Circle?
Then we see Russian sanctioned shadow fleet oil tankers move freely along the east coast of the US, but only the shadow tankers of Iran and Venezuela are being seized by the US coastguard.
the United States started seizing shadow fleet tankers carrying Venezuelan oil to enforce sanctions and apply even more pressure. With the declaration that all in and out-going vessels will be stopped by the US Navy, the captains of the Russian ships started to panic, understanding that they will be targeted next as they were sanctioned by the US as well.
Retired, living in the Scottish Borders after living most of my life in cities in England. I can now indulge my interest in all aspects of living close to nature in a wild landscape. I live on what was once the Iapetus Ocean which took millions of years to travel from the Southern Hemisphere to here in the Northern Hemisphere. That set me thinking and questioning and seeking answers.
In 1998 I co-wrote Millennium Countdown (US)/ A Business Guide to the Year 2000 (UK) see https://www.abebooks.co.uk/products/isbn/9780749427917
borderslynn 