No More Mixed Signals: Europe Needs To Spend More on Defense—and Soon

The news that senior members of the Trump administration's foreign policy team inadvertently invited a critical journalist onto a group chat that discussed the Yemen bombing campaign has roiled Washington. After two months of disruption, the Beltway is settling into its first classic scandal of this presidential term. But while Americans argue about classification standards and parse the precise distinction between "war plans" and "attack plans," the rest of the world focuses on what the conversation reveals about the administration’s attitudes toward them. Europe is confronting the depths of Trumpian disdain revealed in the texts. Some countries are making important progress on defense. The question is if it will be enough.

The post No More Mixed Signals: Europe Needs To Spend More on Defense—and Soon appeared first on .

The strategy behind Trump’s looming NATO withdrawal? A new global order



Recent speculation suggests Donald Trump may withdraw from NATO, while few have explored the reasons he might pursue that path.

Yes, abandoning America's longtime security framework in Europe aligns with promises to cut spending and avoid foreign entanglements — but the motivations run deeper than that.

If the US is moving toward a more transactional foreign policy, then keeping Turkey happy makes sense, especially if it means limiting Russian-Chinese influence in Central Asia.

It's about restructuring the global order.

The U.S. is pivoting toward a more transparently transactional alliance system, one centered on regional powers that can do the heavy lifting while Washington plays arbiter.

The new security and economic bloc forming before our eyes looks like it will involve Russia, Turkey, and Israel.

These are not natural allies in the traditional sense, but they each serve a role in what is shaping up to be a strategic trade-off:

  • Russia gets its Ukraine deal;
  • Turkey gets dominance in the Eastern Mediterranean and Central Asia; and
  • Israel secures its energy routes.

Greece, Armenia, and even Ukraine, meanwhile, are looking more and more like sacrificial pawns in this reshuffling.

Trump has never cared for NATO’s obsession with Ukraine, and he’s likely to cut a deal that brings the war with Russia to an end.

The most probable outcome would be a mineral rights agreement where Russia officially consolidates its control over Eastern Ukraine while the United States walks away with access to key resources and a stabilized energy market.

The war-fatigued West will be sold this as a win ("Trump ended the war!") but in reality, it will be the moment Washington moves past its commitments to Eastern Europe and onto bigger plans.

This wouldn’t just be a settlement on Ukraine. It would also serve as the foundation for a broader U.S.-Russia understanding. Russia’s ultimate goal is to weaken NATO’s grip over its near abroad. If Washington gives signals that it won’t interfere in Armenia, Georgia, or even parts of Eastern Europe, Moscow will have no reason to keep its old hostility toward America.

Recalibrating alliances

Then, we have Turkey. Recent rumors that Trump would shut down a U.S. military base in Greece have yet to come to pass. Still, they reflect the region's anxiety concerning Trump's affinity for Turkish President Recep Erdoğan.

Erdoğan has always wanted a freer hand in the Aegean, where Greece controls a massive exclusive economic zone and the most important shipping lanes in the region. If Washington tacitly allows Turkey to pressure Greece, it clears the way for a major shift in power.

At the same time, Israel is tied up in the energy game with Greece through a pipeline linking the two. If Turkey’s aggressive posturing disrupts that project, Israel may find itself needing to recalibrate its alliances.

That’s where we come in. America can broker an arrangement where Israel and Turkey, which have been exchanging fighting words over Palestine for the last year and a half, find common ground, possibly at Greece’s expense.

This isn’t far-fetched. Turkey has been a problem for NATO for years, and yet Washington keeps it close because of its strategic importance.

If the U.S. is moving toward a more transactional foreign policy, then keeping Turkey happy makes sense, especially if it means limiting Russian-Chinese influence in Central Asia.

A geopolitical earthquake

Meanwhile, the West is playing Armenia much like it played Ukraine: dangling EU integration, offering economic deals, and encouraging a break from Russia.

But just like Ukraine, Armenia is expendable. If war breaks out again with Azerbaijan, Armenia will be on its own, isolated from Russia and surrounded by hostile powers.

Here’s the likely scenario: The war starts, and Armenia holds out for a while, but without serious backing, it eventually loses key territory, most importantly the southern region of Syunik.

Then, as with Ukraine, America steps in as the “peacemaker” and negotiates a deal.

The price? Armenia gives up Syunik, allowing Turkey and Azerbaijan to finally complete the Zangezur corridor, uniting the Turkic world from Anatolia to Central Asia.

This would be a geopolitical earthquake. Turkey and Azerbaijan would gain unprecedented control over trade and energy flows, and a new power bloc would emerge stretching across the Caspian.

At first glance, a U.S.-backed Pan-Turanic expansion sounds counterintuitive, but it actually aligns with Washington’s shift toward an interest-based alliance system. A consolidated Turkic bloc led by Turkey, stretching from Anatolia through Azerbaijan and into Central Asia, would serve as a counterbalance to China’s Belt and Road Initiative. It would give the U.S. leverage over key trade routes while keeping both Russia and China in check.

At the same time, this would spell the end for Armenia as we know it. A landlocked state already struggling to maintain relevance would be completely isolated, boxed in by adversaries, and left with little recourse but to accept a diminished future. The EU’s empty promises won’t save Armenia. If anything, they will only push it further into the abyss.

Who wins, who loses?

Winners:

  • The U.S. moves beyond NATO into a more flexible alliance structure.
  • Russia secures its Ukrainian gains and reduces Western influence near its borders.
  • Turkey achieves its long-term goal of regional dominance and direct access to Central Asia.
  • Azerbaijan cements its position as the dominant power in the South Caucasus.
  • Israel secures its energy interests in a new regional balance.

Losers:

  • Ukraine is left with a frozen conflict and a fractured future.
  • Greece faces renewed pressure from Turkey over shipping lanes and energy control.
  • Armenia loses Syunik and is pushed into permanent isolation.

The bottom line

If Trump follows through on withdrawing from NATO, it won’t be the end of U.S. influence. It will simply be the beginning of a new grand strategy.

The post-1945 world order was built on ideological alliances and the “rules-based order." The next era will be about raw, transparently strategic interests. America doesn’t need NATO if it can secure influence through regional power deals.

Armenia, Greece, and Ukraine are all at risk of being left behind in this transformation. The West no longer fights for weak states unless it directly benefits from doing so. The game is changing, and the players who don’t recognize the shift will be the ones who suffer the most.

How NATO’s ‘model intervention’ shattered Libya and Europe



In 2010, Muammar Gaddafi made a dire prediction about Europe’s future. While negotiating a deal with Italy to prevent African migrants from using Libya as a gateway to Europe, he warned: “Tomorrow, Europe might no longer be European … as there are millions who want to come in. … We don't know if Europe will remain an advanced and united continent or if it will be destroyed, as happened with the barbarian invasions.”

A year later, Gaddafi was dead. His removal during an Arab Spring uprising created a power vacuum in Libya, allowing nearly a million migrants from Africa and the Middle East to cross the country unchecked into Europe — just as he had foreseen. Years later, the Migration Policy Institute described Libya’s continued instability, stating: “Post-Gaddafi, the trade and extortion of human beings became a central source of income for communities in Libya, often to the migrants’ detriment.”

No territorial body — whether in Africa, Europe, or anywhere else — can truly function as a nation without securing its borders.

At the peak of the migration surge into Europe in 2015, Libya became a primary transit point, with nearly 200,000 migrants per year making the journey. Smugglers charged between $5,000 and $6,000 per person to cross the Mediterranean on unsafe dinghies. Many landed first on the Italian island of Lampedusa before continuing to welfare-rich destinations like Germany and Sweden.

That same year, a separate wave — the “European migrant crisis” — unfolded, likely influenced by Libya’s collapse. This migration, largely over land, passed through the Middle East, Turkey, and Greece before reaching Germany, where then-Chancellor Angela Merkel welcomed the influx.

The 15th anniversary of Gaddafi’s warning is also a reminder of NATO’s direct role in his downfall. The U.S.-led alliance, facing unprecedented criticism from the current White House, orchestrated the dictator’s removal in 2011. The Arab Spring provided a pretext to eliminate a longtime regional obstacle, setting the stage for the chaos that followed.

Libya remains far from recovery and needless to say has not transitioned into a Western-style democracy. Instead, it resembles a slightly less chaotic version of Iraq, marked by deep tribal and factional divisions. However, a 2017 agreement between Italy and the Libyan coast guard has significantly reduced migrant crossings from Libya to Europe. Meanwhile, rising foreign-led terrorism and organized crime in Germany and Sweden have bolstered the appeal of right-wing populist movements.

NATO’s removal of Gaddafi, once hailed as a “model intervention” by Foreign Affairs, exposed the fundamental flaw of nation-building — failing to account for the vacuum left behind (or, really, just the folly of nation-building itself).

More than a decade later, Libya, like Iraq and Syria, remains fractured not just along political lines but also by tribal and ethnic divisions. Under Gaddafi, Libya had been both a destination and transit hub for migrants, particularly black Africans seeking work in the oil industry. After his fall, many became victims of racial violence and even enslavement by local militias and Islamist groups.

Barack Obama later admitted that failing to plan for Libya’s post-Gaddafi future was his “worst mistake” as president. Reflecting on the crisis, he noted that any stable government must first control its own borders. Given the source, the irony is unmistakable. But the point remains: No territorial body — whether in Africa, Europe, or anywhere else — can truly function as a nation without securing its borders.

Zelenskyy miscalculated — and Trump won’t budge



During last week’s Oval Office confrontation with President Donald Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy received a stark reality check — and Europe is now scrambling to preserve its influence over Ukraine’s future.

First, we must establish a crucial fact: Those who wish to continue the endless war want you to believe that Ukraine must join NATO to ensure its ongoing security in a ceasefire deal. The opposite is true. Russia lost, and it did so without NATO involvement. Russia failed to achieve its primary objective — taking full control of Ukraine. The notion that Russia is poised to invade Poland or other NATO countries is unfounded. Without NATO involvement, Moscow has already demonstrated its limitations.

Will Zelenskyy take the deal, or will he keep dragging his countrymen through a war they can’t win?

This is critical when examining the exchange at the White House between Trump and Zelenskyy. This was not a routine diplomatic meeting — it was an unvarnished display of power dynamics.

Contrary to prevailing narratives, Trump did not instigate the tension. The viral clips circulating on social media omit the preceding 20 minutes, during which Trump consistently offered Zelenskyy an off-ramp.

Trump repeatedly cautioned him, signaling that he should reconsider his stance. Yet Zelenskyy persisted, prompting Trump’s firm response: “Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. We’re trying to solve a problem!”

Zelenskyy had just been publicly put in his place. He came to Washington thinking he could dictate terms. He thought he could guilt America into another blank check. Trump made it clear: Those days are over. At that moment, Zelenskyy grasped reality. He was no longer dealing with an American leader willing to be pressured into indefinite financial and military commitments. He hastily returned to Europe seeking reinforcement.

Zelenskyy returns, tail between his legs

Within hours, European leaders — including British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, and other heads of state — gathered in London. Their objective was to craft an alternative peace framework that would circumvent Trump’s influence. Their true concern is not Russia’s next move but the prospect of an American president who prioritizes U.S. interests over European demands.

In response, the U.K. pledged an additional aid package to Ukraine worth over $4 billion, including a $2 billion loan and another $2 billion for air defense systems. Macron floated the idea of a “coalition of the willing,” which is a euphemism for “If America won’t send troops, maybe we will.”

This approach raises fundamental questions. Are European nations prepared to deploy their own troops? More importantly, are Americans willing to send their sons and daughters to fight in Ukraine? The answer, for many, is a resounding no.

Europe’s power play

The ongoing crisis is less about defending democracy and more about geopolitical maneuvering. European elites are striving to maintain their strategic leverage, and Trump’s economic-based approach threatens to upend their plans.

Trump’s proposal to Ukraine is straightforward: Accept economic investment in rare-earth minerals, or receive no further assistance.It prioritizes economic cooperation over endless war. Ukraine holds vast mineral resources essential to modern technology, and American investors are prepared to help rebuild the nation. The plan represents a mutually beneficial alternative to prolonged warfare. However, Zelenskyy initially rejected it. After reconsidering, he returned to the United States, only to attempt a renegotiation in front of the media. Trump, unwilling to entertain such posturing, dismissed him outright.

This response sent shock waves through European leadership. If Trump’s strategy prevails, the war will conclude, military aid will cease, and Ukraine will transition to an economic recovery model. Such a resolution would strip Europe of its ability to dictate terms while simultaneously disrupting China’s control over global supply chains — an outcome Beijing strongly opposes.

The bigger picture

Connecting these dots reveals a broader reality: European leaders are not advocating for peace — they are maneuvering to retain influence. Their fear is not that Ukraine will fall to Russia but rather that Trump will broker a settlement that excludes them from the decision-making process.

Zelenskyy’s tantrum in the Oval Office was not merely a diplomatic miscalculation — it was the reaction of a leader recognizing that U.S. policy is shifting away from blank-check commitments. The crucial question now is whether Ukraine will seize the opportunity to rebuild through economic engagement or persist in a conflict that serves the interests of European power brokers more than its own people. Will he take the deal, or will he keep dragging his countrymen through a war they can’t win?

“America First” isn’t about abandoning allies but about ensuring we’re not being played. Last week, Trump made it clear: The game is over.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

International law spells the end of sovereignty



Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s recent meeting at the White House was a disaster. Afterward, every progressive pundit rushed to declare that the rules-based international order was on the verge of collapse. Delusional commentators argued that any peace talks with Ukraine acknowledging Zelenskyy’s stubbornness would spell the end of international law and national sovereignty.

Their assumption is flawed. They seem to believe that international law is a higher power that countries can appeal to and that the United States is obligated to uphold. In reality, international law and the supranational bodies that supposedly enforce it are more likely to threaten national sovereignty than protect it.

Civilizations will continue to clash in a contest of great power politics, leaving smaller nations to go along for the ride — whether they want to or not.

Sovereignty means holding supreme power — the ability to make final decisions without outside approval. Sovereign entities may consider the interests of other nations and the limits of their power beyond their borders. But a truly sovereign nation does not need permission from international bodies to make decisions.

When leaders appeal to outside authorities to validate their nation’s sovereignty, they misunderstand what sovereignty means.

Sovereignty rightly understood

The political philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that a state’s sovereignty depends on its ability to protect its citizens. By his definition, a state that cannot defend its own people or borders is not sovereign. No nation can survive long without protection from hostile forces. If a nation cannot provide for its own defense, another political entity will assume that role and, by extension, its sovereignty.

Carl Schmitt echoed Hobbes’ view when he wrote:

If a people is afraid of the trials and risks implied by existing in the sphere of politics, then another people will appear which will assume these trials by protecting it against foreign enemies and thereby taking over political rule. The protector then decides who the enemy is by virtue of the eternal relation of protection and obedience.

Despite the valiant efforts of many Ukrainian soldiers, Ukraine cannot defend itself without outside help. Western nations have sent hundreds of billions of dollars, along with ammunition and advisers, to support Ukraine’s military. Even so, the Ukrainian forces have struggled to hold their ground.

Russia has not achieved the level of dominance it wants, but the reality is clear: Without backing from the United States and other NATO allies, Ukraine would likely lose the war immediately.

In theory, international law and organizations like NATO exist to protect the sovereignty of nations that cannot stand up to great powers like Russia. NATO was founded to defend Western nations against the Soviet Union’s expansion. Although that threat has vanished, the military alliance endures, claiming to protect the sovereignty of its members. However, despite losing its primary adversary, NATO has continued to expand, moving its borders ever closer to Russia.

In reality, NATO is the United States and the United States is NATO. In 2023, the U.S. contributed $830 billion of NATO’s $1.3 trillion budget. Germany, the second-largest contributor, provided just $61 billion. This funding disparity explains why Donald Trump repeatedly urged European nations to increase their contributions to NATO and to boost their own national defense budgets.

Previous U.S. administrations have encouraged Europe’s demilitarization while pledging to defend the continent with American resources. This arrangement may have played a crucial role in stopping the spread of communism when Europe was recovering from two world wars. But with its original purpose fulfilled, NATO now serves only to distort the true nature of sovereignty.

Ukraine is not sovereign

Officially, Volodymyr Zelenskyy is the president of an independent nation fighting a territorial war against a world power. In reality, the United States and its NATO allies are funding a proxy war with Russia. While Zelenskyy should hold significant authority, it’s clear that the real peace negotiations are happening between Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. If the United States continues to provide financial and military aid, the war could drag on for years. If that support ends, the conflict would likely conclude swiftly.

Ukraine’s inability to defend itself independently means it cannot control its own fate. Ukraine is not sovereign, and Zelenskyy does not make the final decision. During his meeting at the White House, Zelenskyy seemed to forget this reality, but Trump did not hesitate to remind him before showing him the door.

The idea that a collection of “international laws” recorded in the charter of a supranational institution can uphold the sovereignty of smaller nations is comforting but false. When a lesser nation appeals to an international body, it is ultimately appealing to the will of the sovereign nations that control that body. The moment a country must rely on another for protection, it surrenders its sovereignty.

This geopolitical reality is unsettling to many because it suggests that very few nations are truly sovereign. While some countries may exercise a degree of internal political autonomy, even that can be quickly undermined. U.S. intelligence agencies wield significant influence over foreign affairs, largely because many nations rely on America for their defense.

Samuel Huntington’s theory that geopolitics is a clash between civilizational blocks led by great powers has proven accurate. Supranational organizations like NATO and the “international law” they enforce are little more than façades for the will of powerful nations shaping global events. Civilizations will continue to clash in a contest of great power politics, leaving smaller nations to go along for the ride — whether they want to or not.

NATO’s cracks show: Time for a controlled demolition?



When they’re first built, skyscrapers and other towering buildings are impressive. But there comes a time when structural weaknesses raise the danger that one will collapse, injuring or killing many people going about their daily business. Shoring up the building works for a while, sometimes, but often things reach the stage where the most prudent action is to demolish it in a controlled way.

The United States faces similar structural threats today. The two most urgent and fundamental dangers are the unchecked administrative state at home — and, by extension, among globalist NGOs — and the declining condition of many NATO partner countries. Both the administrative state and the U.S. role in NATO were products of postwar efforts to create stability and order after World War II. However, these institutions have grown far beyond their original purposes and now pose significant risks to our national security, economic stability, and core constitutional freedoms.

Both the entrenched administrative state and our current alliances with Western Europe now show serious structural weaknesses.

Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency project is exposing the depth of corruption and waste within the administrative bureaucracy and its NGO partners. As a result, Americans are starting to see how these networks leave ordinary people struggling to afford basic needs like food and rent. The findings also reveal the extent of the country’s precarious financial situation.

However, fewer Americans realize how European countries have drained U.S. resources — and arguably poisoned the relationship — through their actions. While the United States has shouldered most of NATO’s expenses and defense efforts, European nations have neglected their own militaries and failed to meet their defense commitments.

European nations have made things worse by burdening their own economies with unsustainable welfare programs and excessive regulations that stifle innovation. At the same time, they have imposed unfair tariffs on U.S. goods, increasing the economic strain.

Even more troubling, they are trying to impose regulations on U.S. energy use, free speech, information flow, and even the participation of popular parties in national governments. Recent examples are easy to find, and Vice President Vance recently highlighted some of these issues at the Munich conference.

Meanwhile, they expect the United States to continue draining its resources, admit Ukraine into NATO — which would commit U.S. forces to respond to Russia — and silence any criticism of their actions on social media.

The hypocrisy is both staggering and offensive. For proof, just look at how much Russian oil and gas Germany is buying today, even as it refuses to allow imports of Israeli natural gas.

Is it time to consider a controlled demolition of NATO? Possibly. The alliance should have been restructured or dissolved after the Soviet Union fell 34 years ago. Instead, President Clinton and his successors expanded NATO incrementally by adding former Soviet and communist countries on Russia’s border. That this strategy would provoke a response was entirely predictable.

We must not be drawn farther into this folly. Alliances based on mutual interests and fair contributions are valuable. But having U.S. troops deployed in combat at the whims of Great Britain, France, and Germany — rather than based on American assessments of threats and costs — is not.

The bottom line: Both the entrenched administrative state and our current alliances with Western Europe now show serious structural weaknesses. It’s time to consider dismantling or reforming them before they collapse on American citizens and the nation as a whole.

How Biden’s Blank Check For Ukraine Disastrously Bounced

Americans were told that, with enough help, Ukraine could liberate all of its territory. It was a murderous lie.

Trump's Oval Office Showdown With Zelensky and the End of Europe's Free Ride

Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky was not the first European leader to cross the pond this week in search of answers from Donald Trump. But Zelensky’s visit, which culminated in a showdown with the president and vice president, was the most consequential. 

The post Trump's Oval Office Showdown With Zelensky and the End of Europe's Free Ride appeared first on .

Europe’s Free Ride Comes to an End

Having been shocked by Vice President J.D. Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference and Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s negotiations with Russia, the great and the good in Europe are descending on Washington to understand what the Trump administration is up to. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and his French counterpart, Emmanuel Macron, are merely the most well-known figures to cross the pond in the past few days.

The post Europe’s Free Ride Comes to an End appeared first on .

For peace in Ukraine, we must defeat the globalist propaganda machine



The world has changed dramatically since Donald Trump’s inauguration. In just five weeks, he has reversed U.S. policy in Ukraine, shifting from endless war to a MAGA/America First foreign policy. The United States and Russia are now negotiating peace face-to-face.

But peace in Ukraine threatens the interests of the globalists and neoconservatives who helped engineer this conflict. Determined to destroy Trump’s peace agenda — and his presidency — they are working to undermine these efforts.

Lies can’t withstand truth — and we must fight like never before to speak the truth about Ukraine.

In its final days, the Biden administration sought to escalate the war in Ukraine, desperate to derail Trump’s plan. Biden (or whoever was running the country at the time) authorized Ukraine to launch deep strikes inside Russia using U.S.-made Army Tactical Missiles Systems.

These missiles rely on American military satellites, American GPS targeting systems, and American personnel for coordination. That meant the United States was no longer just supporting Ukraine — it was directly involved in firing missiles into Russia and killing Russian soldiers.

The warmongers pushed the world to the brink of nuclear war. President Trump pulled us back.

A globalist war

This war was never about Ukraine. U.S. Army Col. Douglas Macgregor has pointed out that the United States and NATO have waged a proxy war in Ukraine to advance globalist interests. Their ultimate goal is to dismantle Russia as a nation.

The strategy, outlined by George Soros, called for using Eastern Europeans as cannon fodder in a war with Russia to “reduce the risk of body bags for NATO countries.” This plan has been brutally executed, and the cost has been staggering. More than 1 million Ukrainian soldiers have lost their lives.

During the 2024 campaign, President Trump made his anti-war, anti-globalist stance clear. In his Agenda 47 video “Preventing World War III,” he warned, “Every day this proxy battle in Ukraine continues, we risk global war.” He vowed to end these conflicts, stating, “There must … be a complete commitment to dismantling the entire globalist neocon establishment that is perpetually dragging us into endless wars” (emphasis added).

President Trump is delivering on his promise.

Truth bombs away!

Trump and his team began dismantling the globalist-neocon war machine with three major truth bombs.

First, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that Ukraine will never join NATO. This decision was monumental — NATO’s push to expand into Ukraine was the primary trigger for the war.

Next, Vice President JD Vance addressed European globalist elites in Munich, condemning their Soviet-style crackdowns on free speech and political dissent. His speech was so powerful that the conference chairman was reportedly brought to tears.

Finally, President Donald Trump exposed Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a fraud, calling him “a dictator without elections” who has driven Ukraine into ruin.

Boom.

The resulting freakout by the globalists, neocons, endless-war uniparty, and the mainstream propaganda media has been intense. They’ve regrouped and launched Russia collusion hoax 2.0, again rolling out the lie that “Trump is a Russian asset.”

Obedient to his puppet masters, even Volodymyr Zelenskyy joined the chorus — claiming that Trump “lives in a disinformation space” created by the Kremlin.

The dictator checklist

NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine has relied on one of the largest propaganda campaigns in history. The truth has been buried under a mountain of lies — but a full-scale effort to expose reality can change that. President Trump’s statement on Volodymyr Zelenskyy is a strong start, but much more needs to be done.

Let’s begin.

In a Truth Social post, Trump described Zelenskyy as a “moderately successful comedian.” That assessment is far too generous. Zelenskyy is a clown, not a statesman. In Ukraine, he is best known for flamboyant and vulgar television performances — playing the guitar in his underwear, dancing in high heels while patting fellow male dancers on their backsides, and even performing a Jewish folk song on the piano using his penis.

So how many boxes does Zelenskyy check on the dictator checklist?

First, he’s an illegitimate president.

Zelenskyy canceled presidential elections and remains president even though his term expired last May. No wonder. A November poll showed that only 16% of Ukrainians would vote for him again. President Trump reports that now, support has dropped to 4%.

He’s running a corrupt, neo-Nazi police state.

Seriously, Zelenskyy is a neo-Nazi collaborator. His regime is a neo-Nazi police state that celebrates Nazis as heroes. The birthday of Stepan Bandera, the father of Ukrainian Nazism and leading German collaborator during World War II, is a national holiday.

Ukraine is the most corrupt nation in Europe. Elon Musk calls Zelenskyy’s government a “fraud machine feeding off the dead bodies of soldiers.”

He’s blocked political opposition.

Zelenskyy banned all 11 opposition political parties, imprisoned opposition party leaders, and has sanctioned his main rival in any future election.

He is crushing freedom of speech, press, and religion.

Zelenskyy shut down all non-government-controlled media. Websites not approved by the government are prohibited. Last year, American journalist Gonzalo Lira was imprisoned for criticizing the Zelenskyy and Biden governments. Lira was tortured and died from neglect.

Ukrainians are being imprisoned for criticizing the regime — even in their private conversations.

Zelenskyy has directed the assassination, kidnapping, and torture of his political opponents.

Press gangs snatch Ukrainian men off the streets and shove them into frontline trenches.

Zelenskyy outlawed the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and jailed dozens of priests. He’s a bad guy.

The truth will out — if we fight

The globalist-neocon establishment is pulling out all the stops to sabotage President Trump’s peace agenda and prolong the war in Ukraine. Its weapon is the propaganda that keeps the American people in the dark. But lies can’t withstand truth — and we must fight like never before to speak the truth about Ukraine.

President Trump pulled us back from the brink of another world war. We cannot allow the warmongers to pull us back from the brink of peace.