Spin Cycle: Russia, Russia, Russia … Plus A Little Chaos At The Pentagon

Go to Article

For those who don’t spend their Sunday mornings glued to the television — and their Sunday afternoons attempting to dig through a week’s worth of network and cable news media spin — The Daily Wire has compiled a short summary of what you may have missed.

The focus of the spin on Sunday centered on the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine – along with attempts by President Donald Trump and his administration to bring about an end to hostilities. Citing Trump’s recent harsh comments directed at Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Democrats and media alike have used the opportunity to claim that Trump, if not working with Russia, is certainly more sympathetic to dictator Vladimir Putin than to Zelensky.

On CNN’s “State of the Union,” anchor Jake Tapper pressed Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff on what concessions might be expected from both sides — and Witfokk made it clear that thus far, there were a lot of possibilities still on the table.

“Well, I think, in any peace deal, each side is going to make concessions, whether it’s territorial concessions, whether it’s economic concessions. I think there’s a whole array of things that happen in a deal. And you will see concessions from both sides,” he said.

Witkoff also responded to claims that Trump might opt not to assist NATO allies in the event that Russia attacked elsewhere — and he rejected them outright.

“I just don’t understand the rationale behind that. We’ve done more than most… I just think it’s unfair, actually,” he said.

“Essentially, this is President Trump surrendering to the Russians,” Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) claimed during an appearance on ABC News’ “This Week.” This is not a statesman or a diplomat. This is just someone who admires Putin.”

Reed made no concessions for the possibility that Zelensky could be asking for what both Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said was impossible — admission into NATO for Ukraine — nor did he mention the fact that Zelensky’s negotiation tactics had been criticized both by former President Joe Biden and by current Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Rubio brought up that very issue during an interview last week with independent journalist Catherine Herridge, noting that Biden had reportedly sworn at Zelensky on the phone after the Ukrainian leader publicly badmouthed what the United States was not doing to help — even after billions had been sent in aid.

The Secretary of State also cited a more recent meeting that included himself, Zelensky, and Vance — and after saying in the meeting that he was ready to work out a deal involving mineral rights, Zelensky turned around and made a very different, more antagonistic public statement.

Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) pushed back on the prevailing narrative during an appearance on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” – and on warnings from a number of Democrats — saying that he did not “believe for a second” that Russia would move to invade NATO allies.

Democrats have been pushing that particular narrative — because if Russia did invade a NATO ally, the United States is treaty-bound to take military action — in order to keep driving support for funding Ukraine.

Meanwhile, the president started even more tongues wagging with his decision to start the staffing shake-ups at the Pentagon by firing the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Senator Reed complained that the move was “completely unjustified” despite the fact that such roles are filled at the pleasure of the president: “It’s the beginning of a very, very serious degradation of the military and politicization of the military.”

Reed did not mention the fact that former President Barack Obama had fired General Stanley McChrystal under similar circumstances.

Martha Raddatz also brought in retired General George Casey, who also criticized the move as “extremely destabilizing.”

“When you remove so many senior leaders, especially without justifying and giving due cause, it creates huge uncertainty in the ranks,” he argued.

Casey also balked at the idea that senior leaders were being removed in order to root out the DEI problems within the military, arguing that it was possible to change the policy without removing the leaders who had been instrumental in implementing it.

“Now we’re going to put military leaders in jeopardy and punish them for following lawful orders from another administration? I mean, give me a break.”

“I honestly don’t think it was necessary because if they want to change the direction, they can change the policies and not the people.”



Comment on this Article Via Your Disqus Account