The massive Ukrainian flag unfurled across the Delaney Park Strip on Friday didn’t simply appear out of nowhere. It was part of a coordinated effort by outside groups that converged on Anchorage to influence the optics surrounding the high-stakes meeting between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
A Must Read Alaska review found that the pro-Ukraine protests downtown were not purely grassroots. Instead, they were bolstered by national organizations with long-standing ties to Ukraine advocacy, including Razom for Ukraine and United Help UA, some with historical connections to George Soros-backed initiatives and formerly funded by USAID.
Razom, a US-based nonprofit headquartered in New York City, confirmed that its team was on the ground in Anchorage. In a public post, Razom media advisor Ostap Yarysh said the group helped connect international journalists with members of Alaska’s Ukrainian community and assisted with media coverage of the protests.
The media was very cooperative and gave the protest massive coverage, just as planned by the Outside groups based in New York.
At the pro-America rally on Saturday, Razom representatives approached gubernatorial candidate Bernadette Wilson and told her that they were with “Norwegian media,” asking for an interview. As they left, they handed her a business card that had Razom’s name and logo on it.
The so-called journalist who approached Bernadette Wilson was actually the associate director of public engagement for Razom.
The woman and the photographer had infiltrated the pro-America rally under the guise of “journalism.”
One of the world’s largest Ukrainian flags flew up to #Anchorage today courtesy of our friends at @UnitedHelpUA. Some delegates are believed to be staying at the hotels downtown, and the international press corps has a view from above the near convention center. pic.twitter.com/PUi5hVZaqm
— Razom for Ukraine 🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦 (@razomforukraine) August 15, 2025
Razom’s CEO Dora Chomiak is a longtime pro-Ukraine leader whose nonprofit has become one of the most prominent voices for Ukraine in the United States. Under her leadership, Razom has raised more than $100 million in humanitarian and medical aid for Ukraine since Russia’s 2022 invasion. Much of their funding has come from USAID. TIME magazine named her to its 2024 TIME100 Health list for strengthening Ukraine’s health system during wartime.
Chomiak, a native New Yorker and Princeton graduate, worked in Kyiv for the Soros Foundation’s International Renaissance Foundation in the 1990s, helping launch independent media outlets during Ukraine’s transition from Soviet control. She later managed a $7 million US Agency for International Development (USAID) grant. Her professional background also includes roles at McGraw-Hill, Thomson Reuters, and other media and marketing firms.
Razom was not the only outside group behind Anchorage’s demonstrations. The enormous blue-and-yellow flag that stretched across downtown during the summit came from another nonprofit, United Help UA. Razom acknowledged the contribution on social media, writing: “One of the world’s largest Ukrainian flags flew up to #Anchorage today courtesy of our friends at @UnitedHelpUA. Some delegates are believed to be staying at the hotels downtown, and the international press corps has a view from above the near convention center.”
It’s likely that other signage and flags were provided by the same or like groups from outside the state.
Alternately, an Aug. 15, a pro-peace event took place in Anchorage, with Trump flags and American flags, all of which was an organic and locally organized event in contrast to the pro-war, pro-Ukraine events that had outside coordination.
In Alaska, we have debated education funding for decades, yet our results remain near the bottom nationally. The discussion too often centers on how much money we spend, not on whether our kids are learning. While politicians argue about budgets, the price of oil continues to fall, and the PFD shrinks, thousands of Alaska’s children are graduating without the skills they need to succeed in college, careers, or life. It is time to reframe the conversation away from partisan politics, and even the money, and focus on a single, urgent question:
How do we give every child in Alaska the chance to succeed?
Our education system is not failing for lack of money. Alaska already spends more per student than most states, yet our reading, math, and graduation rates lag far behind. The problem is structural. We have built a system that serves adults first, whether bureaucracies, unions, or entrenched interests, while students are left waiting for the scraps of improvement. We cannot keep counting “success” in dollars spent, contracts signed, or jobs saved; we must count success in students who can read, solve problems, and compete in a fast-changing world.
Parents in Alaska are already making their own choices. Both Anchorage and Fairbanks neighborhood schools have lost many students in recent years; many to homeschooling or charter schools, some to private schools. These families are not abandoning neighborhood schools lightly, they are seeking environments where their kids are challenged, supported, and prepared for life. This is not an ideological movement, it is a parental one. It should cut across party lines, income levels, and zip codes.
Governor Dunleavy has rightly called for policies like Education Savings Accounts, charter school expansion, and allowing funding to follow the student. These generally cost neutral tools give parents the power to choose the environment where their child will thrive. But choice alone is not enough. We must also address inefficiencies, such as duplicative administrative structures and outdated district boundaries, that drain resources from classrooms. We must ensure that every possible educational option for our kids is available and held to high standards for results.
Other states are showing us both the possibilities and the pitfalls. Vermont’s recent restrictions on its long-standing tuitioning program, and Illinois’ decision to let its Invest in Kids scholarships expire, are warnings. In both cases, entrenched interests fought to limit options for families, and, just like in Alaska, students paid the price. Alaska cannot afford to continue to follow that path. We must protect and expand choice in ways that fit our state’s unique geography, culture, and communities, and budget. It is hard to justify huge education system expenditures if the kids can’t get to school, or the school is falling down because we have used DOT money to fund education.
This means recognizing that what works in Anchorage may not work in Bethel, and what works in the Mat-Su may not work in Barrow. Education reform cannot be imported wholesale from another Alaska school district or even another state, whether it’s Texas or Vermont. It must be built here, district by district, by Alaskans, for Alaska’s children. That means more local control, more flexibility for rural and urban communities, and a focus on outcomes over systems.
We have an opportunity right now to set aside the stale funding-versus-cuts debate and work together on what really matters: preparing Alaska’s kids for the future. That requires bold reforms, honest evaluation, and the political courage to put students ahead of special interests. It means measuring our success not by how loudly one side “wins” in Juneau, but by how many of our children can read at grade level, graduate ready for the workforce, and step confidently into the next stage of their lives. Those are the wins we need.
The stakes are too high for half-measures or partisan point-scoring. Alaska’s kids deserve better. And if the legislature and others are willing to put them, not the system, at the center of our decisions, we can deliver it.
Can we finally talk about the kids and their education?
Rep. Kevin McCabe serves in the Alaska Legislature on behalf of District 30.
Friday’s meeting between Donald Trump and Vladmir Putin surprisingly made Alaska a setting of great importance for the Russo-Ukrainian war. While Alaskans seemed generally pleased with all the attention, what is potentially overlooked by many were some clues in the meeting to a vital question: What exactly were the original Russian goals for the invasion of Ukraine?
Was the objective a countrywide assault and then an occupation of Ukraine by Russian forces? Or were the goals more modest, and the continued comparisons to Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939 just a method to stoke fear of the Russian Bear again on a rampage for world domination? Perhaps as is often the case in politics, the answer is more nuanced.
Following the Alaska meeting, unofficial sources quoted in Reuters report that Putin proposed to stop the fighting in exchange for Russia permanently taking the eastern Oblasts of Donetsk and Luhansk. If this proposal is eventually confirmed as true, it may well signal what the original Russian invasion plan was.
Having researched Russian Federation military operations for different media outlets and one “think tank” in three separate conflicts, I have learned to discount most of what I read of these engagements between post-Soviet republics and Russia. This is true in political goals, but also in many other areas of the conflicts, such as casualty figures and military equipment loses.
I first saw this phenomenon in the Ossetian War during the Russian invasion of the Republic of Georgia in August 2008, when I had a short-term contract as a reporter for the English language newspaper Georgia Today. In that instance, the exaggerations were the Georgian figures for civilian loses during the Russian occupation of the city of Gori and accusations of Russian war crimes during the occupation.
Another example was during Russian operations in Syria in support of Assad while covering the beginning of the Syrian Civil War in 2012 on the Lebanon-Syrian border. Which brings us to what Russia named the labelled the Special Military Operation in Ukraine.
Put simply, Russian casualty figures may well be overblown to discredit Russian efforts. Mind you, I have not supported Russia in any of these operations. We don’t know for sure how many Russian or Ukrainian soldiers have been killed in this conflict. Because, put simply, both sides have proven themselves untrustworthy.
The Armed Forces of Ukraine puts Russian casualty figures at 1,067,100 as of early August, 2025. By contrast, BBC Russian Media Services and Mediazona records Russian casualties at somewhere slightly at 119,154 in mid-July. Official Russian government press releases stopped releasing casualty figures early in the war. The Russian Ministry of Defense stopped reporting losses in September, 2022 with slightly less than 6,000 killed to that date.
Ukrainian losses are equally hard to pin down. The Russian news source TASS reported that Ukraine had reached the 1 million casualty mark in late December, 2024.
Interestingly, there was some rare questioning of these figures during a recent Al Arabia panel discussion. In it, the issue was that Russia officially began the Ukrainian invasion with 1,300,000 soldiers in uniform. In the broadcast, Dr. Elie Al Hindy, a Security and Global Affairs expert, makes a valid point that the casualty reports as stated may be in fact be inflated, as to have lost that many soldiers would be massively disruptive to Russian military operations.
Yet, all that aside, the question of whether Russia intended to conquer and occupy all of Ukraine at the outset of the invasion remains that unanswered, at least in most western sources.
When trying to formulate an answer to this question, it must be understood that the relationship between Russia and Ukraine is a long one. And before traveling to Ukraine during this war I never realized it is much more complex question than I ever imagined.
To illustrate this, I had an about two-hour conversation with a Polish computer technician named Vasily who sat next to me on the plane out of Warsaw about this exact issue. And while he admitted he was surprised that the invasion had even occurred, he was not as dismissive of Russian methods and goals as you might think. More than once the concept of being Russian as not just a nationality, but instead an ethno/spiritual state of being, was expressed by Vasily to me.
So, with that being said, I would rather comment on some specifics and throw in a little speculation that I will state to some extent as fact, due to personal observation while in the Ukraine.
War damage in Ukraine. Photo credit: Ernest Sipes
It needs to be noted that the only evidence that Russia was bent on a Ukraine invasion and subsequent occupation apparently came from a single source, “The Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies.” This British think-tank stated in late November 2022 that it had obtained a series of documents signed by Putin that outlined a plan to subdue Ukraine in a 10-day period, then execute the leaders of the country and force uncooperative Ukrainians into what appeared to be Soviet-style “reeducation camps.” The documents have never been shown to anyone outside the organization. Even today the RUSI website states “As the underlying source material for much of this report cannot yet be made public, this should be understood as testimony rather than as an academic study. Given the requirements for operational security, it is necessarily incomplete.”
Putin has never disclosed exactly what the goals of the invasion were, besides stating in 2022 it was “denazification and demilitarization” of Ukraine. Interestingly, a Moscow Times article on January 23, 2025, reported that “unnamed sources” recounted that Putin stated that Russia had achieved its key objectives in the Ukraine Special Military Operation.
So, what are we to believe were the actual Russian goals for the invasion of Ukraine?
It appears to me Moscow (and I am choosing to use Moscow to refer to the Russian Federation governing mechanism, as to me it’s a bit simplistic to refer to one man as the leader of a nation with a representational body as is the Duma) always had a fixed series of goals in this war.
And those goals were for the most part accomplished by the third week of the invasion. Now we could argue over whether the Duma truly represents the people of the nation, but for this article that would be pointless.
I perceive Moscow’s goals from the outset of the Special Military Operation as:
A permanent route to the Black Sea.
The unification of areas perceived as belonging to Russia and whose citizens (a majority at least) desire to join Russia.
A notice to the world that the lands that once formed the Soviet Bloc are still under the guidance of Moscow at some level.
To discourage surrounding nations from joining NATO/EU.
To illustrate that all of Eastern Europe is still under the influence of Moscow.
If we approach the situation with these points in mind, Russian actions (and sometimes lack of action) begin making a lot more sense.
If you accept that a decision had been made by Russia to only accomplish a relatively small set of specific goals as outlined above, it is easy to see that this is why there has been no out-and-out destruction of the infrastructure of Ukraine when it is well within the ability of Moscow to do so.
While riding on trains and buses through the Lviv, Ternopil, Khemelnyyskyy, Kiev, Chernihiv, Sumy, Poltava, Kharkiv and Dnipro Oblasts as I did, I realized it doesn’t take a military genius to realize that the topography of Ukraine makes it very vulnerable to aerial bombardment. Additionally, the country suffers from antiquated transport facilities and rolling stock, particularly in regard to railroads. And railroads are still vitally important in Ukraine, as road maintenance is frequently overlooked by municipalities. Additionally, a large percentage of the rolling stock is still of Soviet vintage. And not as antiques for tourists to ride in mind you, but for the actual transportation of goods and military equipment.
Below is a map of Ukraine to illustrate this point.
I ask reader to examine it before and after they read my points.
If the goal of Moscow were to simply invade and occupy Ukraine, then the following would be their logical course of action to pursue:
Strike and destroy bridges over the Dnipro River at Kiev, Cherkasy, Dnipro and Zaporiza using mass Shahed drone swarms as was used in the Donetsk, Sumy, and Chernihiv regions on 13 August.
Destroy the key Dnipro-Holovnyi railway yard using a combination of the RS-28 Sarmat solid fuel ballistic missiles and/or the Iskander-M/KN-23 ballistic missiles. And, while it would be risky for aircrews, fighter bombers such as the Sukhoi 34 and the Tupolev 160 could participate as the less than 180-mile distance to Russian controlled airspace means loses could be manageable.
Basically, rinse and repeat the above for the highways systems M06 and MO3 at Kiev, the M12 at Kirovgard, the MO4 at Dnipro and the M20 at Kharkiv.
Send in any suitable aircraft to simply shoot up the rail and road systems after the above was completed.
Moscow could accomplish all of the above in approximately one week’s time. While aircraft losses would admittedly be high, the effect of cutting off the eastern Oblasts would arguably be worth the losses if simply conquering the country was goal of Russia. There is evidence that Moscow does indeed have the manpower and the aircraft to withstand what losses would occur if this strategy.
If such a series of steps were taken by Moscow, the following would happen:
With the bridges knocked out, roads made impassable and railroads not functioning, no fuel, military equipment, food or goods would move west to east.
Communications would be severely disrupted.
Refugees would be swarming the bridge sites on the eastern side of the rivers, which would impede movement even more and produce almost an almost unimaginable humanitarian crisis. This would only be intensified if the attacks occurred in the winter months.
Virtually no military equipment or reinforcements could be moved into the eastern areas in Donbas, Odessa etc. to reinforce to already taxed Ukrainian defenders.
With the eastern part of the country cut-off, after a few weeks Ukrainian forces in the eastern Oblasts would be facing overwhelming Russian infantry pressure due to not being adequately supplied.
The Kremlin always had an end game for Ukraine; they just didn’t tell us.
And Russian ground forces have already accomplished these goals.
Since the outset, Moscow has been fighting the war it wants to fight.
The evidence is that the holding back of Russian aerial forces is part of an evolving plan, so that when the inevitable peace negotiations begin (as we may have just witnessed the beginning of in Anchorage on Friday), it will make it easier for both parties to come to terms.
However, if we begin hearing that train stations, railroad tracks, bus station, bridges, road junctions and electrical stations in western Ukraine are being systematically destroyed by Russia, then this may very well indicate there has been a change of plans by Moscow in terms of goals for this invasion.
My take is everything is being run on a timetable, with some obvious setbacks for Moscow. From the evidence I see, the Ukrainians and Russians are stubbornly dug in at pretty much the same static front lines in the eastern Oblasts that have existed since mid-2022. And if you can look at it dispassionately, brave Ukrainian soldiers are vainly throwing themselves upon Russian defensive lines even as I write this.
But do not believe what you are being told in the western media, that Russia is aiming for a WWII, Battle of the Bulge-style breakout to encircle Kiev and then force a surrender of the Ukrainian government.
As there is little evidence that this was ever Moscow’s plan for the Special Military Operation.
Ernest Sipes is former OCONUS contractor and reporter, most recently for the Berlin-based media organization Associated Reporters Abroad. He has eleven years of Middle East experience while working in Saudi Arabia and the Sultanate of Oman. In his position as a reporter, Mr. Sipes has visited and reported on Ukraine, Russia, Iraq, Kurdistan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Oman, Republic of Georgia and Somalia. He has published one book in Canada and authored numerous articles in a variety of journals, including USA Today and the Washington Times.https://www.linkedin.com/pub/ernest-sipes/10/702/aa6
President Donald Trump hand-delivered a personal letter from First Lady Melania Trump to Russian President Vladimir Putin during their historic summit in Anchorage on Friday.
The meeting, held on Aug. 15, was already being watched closely as a rare US-Russia dialogue on American soil. But an unexpected moment came when Trump presented Putin with what he described as a “peace letter” from the First Lady, written about the humanitarian toll of the war in Ukraine, and specifically, the fate of children uprooted or abducted in the ongoing conflict.
According to those present, Putin read the letter immediately in front of the two assembled delegations. The note urged the Russian leader to take steps to protect children caught in the crossfire, with language that transcended politics.
“Every child shares the same quiet dreams in their heart, whether born randomly into a nation’s rustic countryside or a magnificent city-center. They dream of love, possibility, and safety from danger,” Melania Trump wrote, in a passage released by the White House.
She went on to call on Putin directly: “In protecting the innocence of these children, you will do more than serve Russia alone — you serve humanity itself.”
The first lady did not travel to Alaska with the US delegation but was in Anchorage in 2017 to visit with military families and children at JBER. She also accompanied the president in 2019, when Air Force One stopped at JBER for refueling on the way to Japan.
Yesterday’s historic summit meeting at Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson between President Donald Trump and Russia’s president Vladimir Putin had much of the world watching our state.
In a Bloomberg podcast before the event, Gov. Mike Dunleavy said there “are going to be a lot of reporters here, a lot of others with their eyes on this great state, a huge deal for Alaska.”
Hopefully some of those eyes belong to FBI Director Kash Patel and US Attorney Pam Bondi. A source recently informed me of talk on social media that FBI agents are looking for rental housing in Anchorage.
While at JBER to cover the historic summit, Fox News anchor Sean Hannity did a video interview with Patel. Early on, Patel said he was “blown away” when “corrupt bureaucrats weaponize and destroy law enforcement like predecessors of mine did with the FBI. Trump is for transparency and accountability.”
Last weekend in Washington DC, one of Bondi’s DOJ employees shouted obscenities in the face of a law enforcement officer and then threw a Subway sandwich at his chest. The DOJ employee was promptly fired and charged with felony assault.
On Thursday, Bondi posted on X, “If you touch any law enforcement officer, we will come after you. This is an example of the Deep State we have been up against for seven months as we work to refocus DOJ.”
These statements by Bondi and Patel in the past couple of days bring to mind the very troubling case brought by Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor against former Ketchikan Police Chief Jeff Walls. Walls’ decorated law enforcement career was destroyed by Taylor shortly after Ketchikan increased their fentanyl seizures by over 500% in the first year of Walls’ leadership.
As readers may recall from my first article about Walls, in November of 2022 the Special Agent in Charge of the Anchorage FBI recognized the Ketchikan Police Department for having the most drug seizures of any department in Alaska. However, the next month one of Taylor’s special prosecutors misled a Ketchikan grand jury into indicting Walls for felony assault.
While off-duty eating dinner with his wife Sharon at a local restaurant outside of city limits, Walls was assaulted twice by a large, drunk aggressive man who used his full body weight to slam up against Walls from behind. The second assault injured Sharon seated next to him.
After recovering from the second blow, Walls subdued the assailant. Yet instead of charging the assailant with a felony, Taylor dropped the misdemeanor charges against him and instead went after Walls. Not just once but three times. Each of those three times Taylor’s prosecutors misled different grand juries in Ketchikan and Juneau on facts and law.
The judge finally dismissed the indictment with prejudice, writing she had no confidence the State would get it right a fourth time. These were unusually strong, nearly unprecedented words, coming from the pen of an Alaskan judge.
As my second article last month on the Walls case stated, Taylor withheld from the 2nd and 3rd grand juries the report of Lieutenant Jeff Hall, a retired State Trooper who was previously the major crimes investigator for “A” Detachment in Ketchikan. Hall’s report concluded, “this case never should have been brought forward”, “the chief showed great restraint”, and “[the chief] was ill-served by the trooper and the prosecutor”
Not mentioned in my previous articles was the report of a current law enforcement officer who like Hall, was also highly critical of the State Troopers’ investigation of Walls’ case. Among other things, the officer stated that the actions of one of the Troopers constituted Tampering with a Witness in the 1st Degree, a class C felony. The officer also reported that one of the Troopers altered the statement of a witness in his report. The officer concluded that the Troopers’ investigation was both illegal and unethical.
Taylor not only dropped charges against Walls assailant, but he didn’t pursue felony charges against an Alaska State Trooper in the process of concocting charges against Walls.
Shouldn’t that make Taylor susceptible to at least a federal investigation, and possibly charges?
Facts in the Walls’ case even suggest the attack on him and his wife may have been intentional, designed to provoke a hostile reaction from the chief for the purpose of getting him out of Ketchikan. Evidence connects a State Trooper making over $200,000 a year to this objective. Obviously, this aspect of the Troopers’ “illegal and unethical” investigation was never explored.
The bottom line is this: the conduct of Taylor, his special prosecutors and State Troopers in the Walls case is far more egregious and a risk to national security than the actions of the DOJ employee in DC assaulting an officer with a Subway sandwich.
The only recourse for the assault against Walls and his wife is for Bondi to prosecute.
Ms. Bondi and Mr. Patel, welcome to the Deep State in Alaska. Our judiciary and criminal justice system have been off the rails for a long, long time. Prosecutors and judges routinely mock basic ethical standards. State Troopers change words and statements to make probable cause statements fit criminal charges.
High-ranking Alaska officials doing this to a decorated police chief, proven to have made a serious dent in the infestation of deadly fentanyl on Ketchikan streets, should make this a high priority concern to you.
Furthermore, certain evidence points to Ketchikan being a relatively low risk and efficient US entry point for fentanyl coming from China on its way south into the continental United States. Is that why Chief Walls and his effective initiatives to seize fentanyl were such a threat? Did they threaten not only the supply of an Alaskan region but a major pipeline into the rest of the United States?
When it comes to questionable conduct by State of Alaska officials, the Walls’ case is certainly no outlier. Patel’s team won’t have to dig far into our own Deep State to find an alarming pattern of constitutional rights being denied to Alaskan citizens going back decades. Much of the work has already been done.
In the Thomas Jack Jr., case they’ll find an Alaska Native man incarcerated for 15 years after another shoddy investigation by State Troopers directed by prosecutors, important exculpatory evidence withheld from the grand jury, and twice being denied a jury of his peers.
They’ll find the State forced a second trial despite knowing Jack did not have competent counsel. They’ll find for the last 10 years the State’s Office of Public Advocacy has provided Jack with attorneys unwilling to prosecute what should be a “slam dunk” post-conviction relief motion on the incompetency issue, and another attorney with a serious conflict of interest.
In the Tommy Hull case, they’ll find a construction worker who was incarcerated for over six years without his case being brought to trial. They’ll find Hull’s assets were frozen through a related divorce proceeding that prevented him from making bail. They’ll find that Hull was repeatedly denied his choice of counsel. They’ll find Hull’s petitions to dismiss the charges based on the lack of a speedy trial were not only denied by state and federal judges in Alaska, but they were even opposed by the attorneys the judge tried to force on him. They’ll find that last week Hull was under duress and pressured by the State to take a plea deal that gave him immediate freedom in exchange for a guilty plea. There’s likely more, but I just found out about Hull’s case two weeks ago.
In the case of AK Mom, they’ll find a registered nurse who the State retaliated against by using false allegations of medical abuse to take away her five children. Over the next three years the State subjected this family to a horrible nightmare, splitting the children up, taking them out of their schools and away from their friends, taking them off prescribed medications, and moving them around the state while ignoring provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Towards the end of the children’s captivity, Taylor’s attorneys fought to keep one of the youngest children in a homeless shelter known to be targeted by traffickers.
These cases just scrape the surface of the abuse and denial of due process that American citizens and families have experienced at the hands of State of Alaska officials.
Cases like Mary Fulp’s must also be investigated. Fulp, an educator who in 2022 was Alaska’s Principal of the Year was taken into custody by Troopers, stripped of her personal belongings, forcibly restrained, and administered medications against her will, simply for posting a Facebook video where she said Jesus is King and that she stood with the Martin Luther King civil rights movement. Constitutionally protected speech in Alaska is in jeopardy.
Public testimony by former State Lieutenant Governor Loren Lehman has detailed how a Democrat legislator once bragged to him that the Alaska judiciary will always be controlled by Democrats. Perhaps the Democrat’s control of our judiciary is why constitutional rights don’t matter in these cases and why our judges act more like politicians.
Local judicial activism to force substandard education on our children, break up families, deny due process rights, weaponize false sexual assault and domestic violence allegations, subvert grand jury rights, overlook essential ethical principles, and to allow legislators to rob our Permanent Fund distributions, all serve to make Alaska weak instead of strong.
In 2022 when we had a chance to change the judicial system by voting “yes” for a constitutional convention, big money came in from Washington DC groups like the National Education Association and the Sixteen Thirty Fund to support the “no” vote.
American citizens in Alaska need President Trump’s help to escape the State’s tyranny. Alaska is essentially a banana republic for the Deep State.
The State’s objectives and historical pattern of denying constitutional rights, breaking up healthy families, and chasing away police chiefs successful in the war against deadly drugs seems designed to create not only a perpetual state of dependency, but a growing one.
In addition, and as President Trump knows very well, Alaska has vast reserves of valuable natural resources. Alaska can play a huge role in effectuating President Trump’s goal of Making America Great Again. But our enemies know that, and they also know how corrupted our state is. President Trump’s goal can be significantly compromised by Alaska’s Deep State.
If State officials are known to unethically and unconstitutionally sell out the best interests of Alaska citizens for a few extra dollars, what will they do when given the opportunity to rake in billions off our natural resources like oil and gas? Who will they contract with, how closely will the identity of their partners be vetted, and why should we believe any code of ethics will actually be enforced?
Towards the end of Hannity’s interview, Patel said, “When you start connecting the dots….as bad as the crime is, the corruption cover-up, from senior government officials who are sworn to uphold their duties and accountability for the American public, they are the ones that violated that trust the most internally and need to be held accountable.
Ms. Bondi and Mr. Patel, a ton of the same corrupt dots connect in Alaska and we need you to hold senior government officials accountable. The Walls case alone highlights the unreliability of Alaska’s Attorney General’s Office and its Department of Public Safety. Anything coming out of either can’t be trusted.
Where there’s smoke, there’s usually fire.
David Ignell was born and raised in Juneau where he currently resides. He formerly practiced law in California state and federal courts and was a volunteer analyst for the California Innocence Project. He is currently a forensic journalist and recently wrote a book on the Alaska Grand Jury.
Anchorage was teeming with cameras, microphones, and satellite trucks on Friday as the historic summit between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin unfolded. With an estimated 400 members of the national and international press corps in town, many Alaskans unexpectedly found themselves in the media spotlight.
Gov. Mike Dunleavy was among the most visible, appearing on Fox & Friends and Fox Business to discuss Alaska’s role in the event and later joining commentator Tim Young on his popular Tim Runs His Mouth podcast.
At the pro-America rally near the Midtown Mall intersection of Seward Highway and Northern Lights Boulevard, several locals spoke with international news outlets. Political activist Portia Erickson, Iditarod veteran Burt Bomhof, and Republican Party activist Dave Morgan all gave interviews.
But perhaps no American drew more media attention — other than Trump himself — than Republican gubernatorial candidate Bernadette Wilson. Already a rising political figure on the national stage, Wilson was featured across multiple outlets including Newsmax, NewsNation, Fox News, and the Todd Starnes radio show on Friday, all while joining other Alaskans at the pro-America rally. Her presence highlighted how the summit became a launching pad for Alaska voices to reach audiences far beyond the 49th state.
The summit itself dominated international headlines, but for many Alaskans, Friday was also a chance to see familiar faces on television screens across the country. Here are some clips from some of the star-powered media interviews with Alaskans:
"THE GROUNDWORK FOR A LASTING PEACE": Alaska @GovDunleavy prepares to welcome President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin pic.twitter.com/e6REck5ehd
Had a great conversation with @NewsNation about the growing excitement in Alaska as we move in a positive direction, grounded in the principle of peace through strength. Alaska is once again at the center of something historic. The energy was real, driven by bold vision and a… pic.twitter.com/CyhDlzT45Q
"I'm extremely grateful to be an American… I always think it's a great opportunity when colleagues and myself and other patriots all across the state of Alaska get to come together and to support our President." pic.twitter.com/FYmxbW0dwe
"We feel honored that we could come out and support President Trump. There are several Ukrainians here that live in Alaska — they're here to support him, too."
"We love America and Trump is the best thing that's happened to us in a long time."
The last time Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited the White House, the meeting ended abruptly, with President Donald Trump dismissing him as “not ready for peace.”
On Monday, the two leaders will try again — this time under the shadow of Trump’s breakthrough meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Saturday.
Trump announced Saturday that he will host Zelenskyy at the Oval Office to press directly for a peace agreement aimed at ending the war between Russia and Ukraine, now in its fourth year.
“The meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia went very well, as did a late night phone call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, and various European leaders, including the highly respected Secretary General of NATO,” Trump posted on TruthSocial shortly after returning to Washington.
He said both sides have agreed that a full peace deal — not merely a temporary ceasefire — is the only way forward. “If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin. Potentially, millions of people’s lives will be saved,” Trump wrote.
During a joint press conference in Anchorage on Friday, Putin echoed that sentiment, saying Russia is interested in “putting an end” to the war but insisted that the “roots” of the conflict must be addressed. He argued that any agreement must include recognition of Russia’s security concerns and restore “a just balance of security in Europe and in the world as a whole.”
Trump, for his part, said “many points were agreed to” with Putin but admitted one major sticking point remains. “There is no deal until there’s a deal,” he cautioned, adding that the ultimate outcome rests with Zelenskyy and Putin.
Zelenskyy, in his own statement Saturday, set down firm conditions for peace. He said Ukraine must see a halt to missile strikes, an end to Russia’s assaults on port infrastructure, and the release of prisoners of war and abducted children. He warned that sanctions should be strengthened if Moscow drags its feet.
“We need to achieve real peace that will be lasting, not just another pause between Russian invasions,” Zelenskyy wrote. “All issues important to Ukraine must be discussed with Ukraine’s involvement, and no issue, including territorial ones, should be resolved without Ukraine.”
The Monday White House meeting will mark the first face-to-face between Trump and Zelenskyy since their February clash, when Trump walked out after saying the Ukrainian leader wasn’t serious about ending the war. Since then, the two men have held side meetings in Europe and appear to have mended relations enough to set the stage for what could be the most consequential round of peace talks since Russia’s invasion began.
The US Coast Guard is responding to the presence of five Chinese research vessels operating in the US Arctic, officials confirmed this week.
The Coast Guard Arctic District deployed a C-130J Hercules aircraft from Air Station Kodiak on Wednesday to query the vessels, which are operating in or near US waters. The operation was conducted in coordination with US Northern Command and Alaskan Command, which routinely track foreign vessel activity in the region as part of homeland defense and maritime security efforts.
The Chinese vessels identified are: Xue Long 2, Shen Hai Yi Hao, Zhong Shan Da Xue Ji Di (Liberia-flagged), Ji Di, and Tan Suo San Hao.
Rear Adm. Bob Little, commander of the Coast Guard’s Arctic District, said the expanding fleet and aviation patrols are vital for countering foreign influence in the far north.
Last week the Coast Guard officially commissioned the icebreaker cutter Storis in Juneau and on Saturday the Storis arrived in Seward.
“Commissioning the Storis and Earl Cunningham increases our ability to control, secure, and defend Alaska’s U.S. border and maritime approaches,” Little said, referencing the service’s newest polar icebreaker and fast response cutter, both added to the fleet this summer. “As we continue to grow our surface fleet, we utilize our aviation resources which play a vital role in countering foreign malign influence.”
The Arctic is rapidly emerging as a global zone of competition, with China, Russia, and the US all maneuvering for influence over shipping lanes, resources, and strategic positioning. The Coast Guard remains the only US surface presence in the Arctic, a role that has grown more critical as activity in the region intensifies.
President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill,” signed into law on July 4, directs nearly $25 billion to the Coast Guard — the largest investment in its history. It includes new icebreakers and Fast Response Cutters to strengthen Arctic security and US maritime defense.
The Alaska Legislature’s special session, called by Gov. Mike Dunleavy, was to formally end Tuesday in what has become a predictable pattern: Nothing accomplished.
But now it appears the session will run through the end of the month. That’s because the Democrat-led majority is worried the governor will call legislators back for another special session.
Lawmakers gaveled in for less than a single day at the beginning of the 30-day session, then went home. On Aug. 19, they were to technically return, but only in the loosest sense of the word. A handful of designated members, mostly from Juneau, will preside over what is called a “technical session.” No calendar items are scheduled, no bills will be taken up, and the Legislature will then gavel back out until the end of the month.
The governor had asked legislators to take up two priorities during this special session: the creation of a stand-alone Department of Agriculture and a series reforms to improve Alaska’s chronically poor public school outcomes. Both issues were ignored.
Instead, the only real action lawmakers took was to override Dunleavy’s partial veto of a permanent increase to K-12 spending, a move that locks in more money for the same system that consistently produces some of the worst educational results in the nation. That took a half an hour.
This special session mirrors the Legislature’s recent trend under Democrat-led leadership: convening, ignoring the governor’s agenda, passing symbolic resolutions such as support for Canada and against President Trump, and adjourning without addressing Alaska’s long-term challenges.
On Tuesday, Alaskans can expect a symbolic gavel-in, gavel-out, and little else.
