Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Beck and O'Reilly Are Skeptical of This University That Wants a ‘Free Speech Year’

August 17, 2017
Staff

WRITER

University of California – Berkeley will commemorate a “Free Speech Year” under new chancellor Carol T. Christ, who is planning to use “point-counterpoint” panels to promote open-minded discussions.

Asserting that “more speech” is the right response to hate speech, Christ has said that she aims to keep students “physically safe” while not shielding them “from ideas that you may find wrong, even noxious.”

In February, UC Berkeley students wreaked havoc on campus and caused $100,000 worth of damage in order to stop an appearance from Milo Yiannopoulos, a Trump supporter and former Breitbart editor who is known for his outrageous and often offensive remarks.

“Now what public speech is about is shouting, screaming your point of view in a public space rather than really thoughtfully engaging someone with a different point of view,” Christ told the Los Angeles Times. “We have to build a deeper and richer shared public understanding.

On radio Thursday, Glenn and Bill O’Reilly were a bit skeptical of UC Berkeley’s ability to promote open discussion.

“I’m sure they’ll respect what I’ll say, and we can have a very, very intelligent, calm dialogue,” O’Reilly said sarcastically.

“And that is the problem with America: we can’t,” Glenn added.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Here's what's really exciting is we have BillO'Reilly.com and Bill O'Reilly on with us right now. I don't think he's going to have much to say when I ask him about Berkeley announcing the free speech year, where Berkeley is going to teach everybody how to all come together and be tolerant and really celebrate diversity and free speech.

Bill, that's exciting news, isn't it?

BILL: Very exciting.

(laughter)

GLENN: You sound almost like you don't believe that might happen.

BILL: No, it's so exciting, Beck, I'm going to buy a condo in Berkeley. I'm moving there, so I can have free speech rights because I'm sure they'll respect what I say, and we can have a very, very intelligent calm dialogue with those people out there.

GLENN: Yeah. And that is the problem with America is we can't.

Now, let me change to the media.

Bill, I think you would agree with me that, you know, the -- the media and tolerance and actual fair and balance has changed on multiple fronts.

BILL: It's done. Absolutely done.

GLENN: Done.

BILL: What you're seeing -- you know, talk radio is the last holdout because basically you guys can run the show the way you want. Your syndicators and your corporations understand who you are. That's why they hired you. You're going to take some hits on sponsors from time to time, but you basically do and say what you want.

But on television, it's totally different because there's so many things involved. You've got, in cable, you've got all the different systems that have to buy the program. You've got the corporations that run the actual presentations. And all of these people are very susceptible to being attacked, as we talked about in the prior segment.

And the far left knows this. They know they can hire people like Color of Change. I want everybody to Google "Color of Change." This is an organization that was formed solely to get paid to go out and attack people with whom they disagree publicly. Right?

GLENN: No.

BILL: And so they're for hire. You can hire them to go stand in front of a building or to go stand in front of a house and scream and yell and accuse and smear and hold signs and do whatever they want.

Well, instead of marginalizing that group as anti-democracy, the corporations fear them. And Color of Change, Media Matters, all of these people, they know that.

GLENN: Well, besides -- hang on. Hang on. That's quite a statement here, Bill. Besides the actual evidence of one of the guys who started Color for Change, Van Jones, working for CNN, what evidence do you have that they embrace and bring Color of Change into the news media?

(laughter)

BILL: Beck, first of all, Van Jones is a self-avowed communist. We all know that, right?

GLENN: No!

BILL: All right. So he even says he is. I don't have anything against Van Jones, by the way.

But the organization -- all right? And many others like it, they're not the only ones. All right?

They are basically being paid good money to do destructive things. And corporations know it, but look the other way and tremble when they get the call from Color of Change.

GLENN: Do you think --

BILL: So this is what -- you want Nazis again? Let's get Nazis here again. You want Nazis? I'll give you Nazis. Okay? This is exactly what happened in Germany in the early '30s, when the Third Reich people would show up and basically tell the newspapers, "Hey, if you say one bad word against us, we're going to burn your place down. Okay? So you better not." Now, the Color of Change people, they're burning the place down through sponsors, not through torches. But it's the same thing. And Stalin did it. And Castro did.

GLENN: Mussolini. Yep.

BILL: They all do it. And people don't know about it.

GLENN: So, Bill --

BILL: No, I'll ask your next question and answer it, Beck.

so how does that affect on television that you see every night? They're scared as well. They're frightened. One of the few that isn't is Hannity.

You know, I've had my issues with Hannity in the past. But I admire Hannity for going out and basically being in your face, telling folks what's going on. You may not agree with Hannity's take, but he's honest about it. And he loves Trump. He thinks Trump is the savior to the country, but he'll tell you that he's under siege 24/7. So -- but that's a very rare exception.

The others are -- I better not say this. Everybody -- oh, that's right. We have to condemn Trump. You know, Trump made a mistake, a tactical error. All right?

He's not an idealistic Nazi, but that's what you're hearing in the media constantly over and over. And who's saying that's not true? They're afraid to say it, Beck. Because then they'll be lumped in with Trump.

GLENN: Well, hang on -- let me give you -- and I agree with you, Bill. You know that I agree with you. I mean, when you're treading the Van Jones, Color of Change, Media Matters thing, I got that one down in spades. I'll show you all the chalkboards on that. So I agree with you.

However, there is one name that people don't pay attention to, and they should. Because I believe -- this guy is one of my heroes: Michael Medved.

BILL: Oh, he's great! He's great.

GLENN: Okay. So do you know what happened to Michael?

BILL: Tell me.

GLENN: So his corporation -- his radio corporation put down an edict that you are not allowed to have anybody on -- on-air that is anti-Trump. And everybody is falling in line. Michael was the only one that pushed back and was fired.

Michael doesn't have his radio gig now because he stood against the same kind of fascism, just on the other side. There is the fascists on both sides.

BILL: Yes. But it's nearly as organized.

GLENN: Oh, I agree with you on that. I agree with you on that.

BILL: I experienced it when I did The Radio Factor. I did The Radio Factor for seven years, and I was not a conservative ideologue by any means. And I got attacked by the right, as you know.

GLENN: Yeah. Yes.

BILL: And I remember one station in Houston basically called us and said, "Well, we don't like O'Reilly. We're going to drop him." Good. You know, I mean, because it was -- but it was just one station out of 280.

GLENN: Yeah. I --

BILL: That we had. Or something like that.

GLENN: I agree with you. And the -- the blessing on the right is, you know, herding a bunch of Libertarians and free market people is like herding cats. It's almost impossible. So we can't get our act together well enough to boycott the free speech that we shouldn't -- so that's a good thing, they're so disorganized, they're way behind the left.

BILL: Way behind.

GLENN: It does exist, but it is way behind.

So let me ask you this, Bill: Play out the media. Because people may not know the names. They may not know the connections like you do, like we've tried to lay out for a long time.

But they -- they know they're not getting the truth. And on top of it, all they're getting is yelling back and forth. You're a Nazi, or you're a communist.

BILL: But there's not even much yelling anymore. Because all of the -- not all -- but most of the commentators, at least on cable news, are cowed. They know now that their whole livelihood is in jeopardy.

Look, on Wednesday night -- no, sorry. Tuesday night. Tuesday night. The -- the biggest news night of the year, with Trump in Charlottesville, right? The press conference.

GLENN: Yep.

BILL: Guess who came in third in cable news? Guess who came in third.

GLENN: Fox? Fox?

BILL: Yes. Fox News came in third. CNN and MSNBC -- CNN beat them in the demo. MSNBC beat them outright. And it wasn't even close.

Fox -- it was stunning to watch the television ratings come in. Why? Because on Fox, which would be naturally inclined to give President Trump the benefit of the doubt. All right? The benefit of the doubt.

GLENN: Yep.

BILL: They no longer do that, en masse. Because they're afraid. And so the audience of Fox knows, outside of Hannity and maybe Carlson a little bit, they're not going to get a robust defense of the right, of the conservative position. And so they don't watch.

Yet, the left hate Trumpers. Flock in to watch CNN and MSNBC work Donald Trump over.

GLENN: Okay.

BILL: So, therefore, the whole thing is changing and collapsing.

GLENN: Okay. So may I propose one change to this theory and see what you think.

I agree with that theory, generally. Generally. Except this time.

Because of the injection of the actual torch-carrying Nazi banner-wearing Jew -- you know, anti-Jew chanting Nazis, now people don't want to -- they don't feel comfortable with a full-throated -- and I'm talked about the audience. A full-throated defense. Because they -- it worked to Trump's -- to his advantage.

BILL: That's absolutely right, Beck. But you don't have to do that. You do what I did in my two columns on this: You explain the mistakes Trump is making.

GLENN: Correct.

BILL: Which I did. All right? And then you say, "Here's what should take place."

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

BILL: Here's the truth. Okay? That's all the audience wants.

The audience isn't mad at me. My audience on BillO'Reilly.com and on The Hill and every place else I go isn't mad at me because I point out Trump's mistakes -- they aren't. They're happy that I'm trying to apply some perspective to it. That's what's missing.

And so that you have a media now that is -- it's flocking -- it's unbelievable. Let's get Trump out of office. That's the goal of the media.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: So where is the counter to that? It's evaporating, which is why Fox News came in third place on Tuesday.

GLENN: Because I don't think, honestly -- I mean, I have a very low opinion of people in the news. I don't think they're generally curious. I think they're intellectually dishonest. I mean, I think they've gone a little dead inside, quite honestly. And so I don't know a lot of people that can make that intelligent case and draw that line and -- and be able to say, "No. He's wrong here. He's right there."

Most of them are too afraid by the numbers, by, you know, whatever.

And so --

BILL: They're intimidated. They don't really have the intellectual heft to do it anyway. All right?

GLENN: Exactly right. And you have the intellectual heft to do that. And that's why you're being successful right now. Our ratings are going up. While everybody else is going down, our ratings are up 11 percent. Why? Because we will tell you when Donald Trump has done well. And we will tell you when he's really screwing it up. We will try to give you perspective as well.

But we don't -- I don't believe that people are comfortable right now. And this is what the media thinks they have to do on the right. And that is just, you back him. Back him. Back him. No matter what.

That's not the right course.

BILL: You can't do that. But you can't buy into a dishonest analysis. But you're wrong about why your ratings are going up, Beck.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

BILL: It's your goatee. It's the goatee. Ever since --

STU: Oh.

GLENN: Wait a minute. Did Bill O'Reilly just make something not about him?

STU: I thought for sure --

GLENN: That is not possible.

BILL: Personal attack. Personal attack.

JEFFY: Wow.

GLENN: Bill, good to talk to you. BillO'Reilly.com. Check out his new webcast. Once in a while he has a good guest like Colonel Sanders.

BILL: Oh, yeah, is it all about you, Beck?

GLENN: But BillO'Reilly.com. Check him out every day. The No Spin News. Thank you very much, Bill. I appreciate it.

BILL: All right. Thanks for having me in.

GLENN: You bet.

Durham annex EXPOSES Soros, Pentagon ties to Deep State machine

ullstein bild Dtl. / Contributor | Getty Images

The Durham annex and ODNI report documents expose a vast network of funders and fixers — from Soros’ Open Society Foundations to the Pentagon.

In a column earlier this month, I argued the deep state is no longer deniable, thanks to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. I outlined the structural design of the deep state as revealed by two recent declassifications: Gabbard’s ODNI report and the Durham annex released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

These documents expose a transnational apparatus of intelligence agencies, media platforms, think tanks, and NGOs operating as a parallel government.

The deep state is funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

But institutions are only part of the story. This web of influence is made possible by people — and by money. This follow-up to the first piece traces the key operatives and financial networks fueling the deep state’s most consequential manipulations, including the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

Architects and operatives

At the top of the intelligence pyramid sits John Brennan, President Obama’s CIA director and one of the principal architects of the manipulated 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence, signed off on that same ICA and later joined 50 other former officials in concluding the Hunter Biden laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation” ahead of the 2020 election. The timing, once again, served a political objective.

James Comey, then FBI director, presided over Crossfire Hurricane. According to the Durham annex, he also allowed the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server to collapse after it became entangled with “sensitive intelligence” revealing her plan to tie President Donald Trump to Russia.

That plan, as documented in the annex, originated with Hillary Clinton herself and was personally pushed by President Obama. Her campaign, through law firm Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS, which commissioned the now-debunked Steele dossier — a document used to justify surveillance warrants on Trump associates.

Several individuals orbiting the Clinton operation have remained influential. Jake Sullivan, who served as President Biden’s national security adviser, was a foreign policy aide to Clinton during her 2016 campaign. He was named in 2021 as a figure involved in circulating the collusion narrative, and his presence in successive Democratic administrations suggests institutional continuity.

Andrew McCabe, then the FBI’s deputy director, approved the use of FISA warrants derived from unverified sources. His connection to the internal “insurance policy” discussion — described in a 2016 text by FBI official Peter Strzok to colleague Lisa Page — underscores the Bureau’s political posture during that election cycle.

The list of political enablers is long but revealing:

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who, as a former representative from California, chaired the House Intelligence Committee at the time and publicly promoted the collusion narrative while having access to intelligence that contradicted it.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), both members of the “Gang of Eight” with oversight of intelligence operations, advanced the same narrative despite receiving classified briefings.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, exchanged encrypted text messages with a Russian lobbyist in efforts to speak with Christopher Steele.

These were not passive recipients of flawed intelligence. They were participants in its amplification.

The funding networks behind the machine

The deep state’s operations are not possible without financing — much of it indirect, routed through a nexus of private foundations, quasi-governmental entities, and federal agencies.

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations appear throughout the Durham annex. In one instance, Open Society Foundations documents were intercepted by foreign intelligence and used to track coordination between NGOs and the Clinton campaign’s anti-Trump strategy.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control.

Soros has also been a principal funder of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, which ran a project during the Trump administration called the Moscow Project, dedicated to promoting the Russia collusion narrative.

The Tides Foundation and Arabella Advisors both specialize in “dark money” donor-advised funds that obscure the source and destination of political funding. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the biggest donor to the Arabella Advisors by far, which routed $127 million through Arabella’s network in 2020 alone and nearly $500 million in total.

The MacArthur Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation also financed many of the think tanks named in the Durham annex, including the Council on Foreign Relations.

Federal funding pipelines

Parallel to the private networks are government-funded influence operations, often justified under the guise of “democracy promotion” or counter-disinformation initiatives.

USAID directed $270 million to Soros-affiliated organizations for overseas “democracy” programs, a significant portion of which has reverberated back into domestic influence campaigns.

The State Department funds the National Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-governmental organization with a $315 million annual budget and ties to narrative engineering projects.

The Department of Homeland Security underwrote entities involved in online censorship programs targeting American citizens.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Pentagon, from 2020 to 2024, awarded over $2.4 trillion to private contractors — many with domestic intelligence capabilities. It also directed $1.4 billion to select think tanks since 2019.

According to public records compiled by DataRepublican, these tax-funded flows often support the very actors shaping U.S. political discourse and global perception campaigns.

Not just domestic — but global

What these disclosures confirm is that the deep state is not a theory. It is a documented structure — funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control. It launders narratives, neutralizes opposition, and overrides democratic will by leveraging the very institutions meant to protect it.

With the Durham annex and the ODNI report, we now see the network's architecture and its actors — names, agencies, funding trails — all laid bare. What remains is the task of dismantling it before its next iteration takes shape.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.