Do not be fooled: The left's favorite talking point about the Ukraine-Russia war is not designed to promote truth, justice, or morality. It's meant to silence you into submission.
For years, the left has accused President Trump of being an agent of Moscow, the puppet of Vladimir Putin. It's not true, of course, but Democrats never let the truth stand in the way of a good narrative. After Trump's Oval Office blow-up with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy last month, Trump's critics once again regurgitated this trite — and still false — accusation.
Assessing the morality of the war requires us to face reality.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) claimed that the White House under Trump is “an arm of the Kremlin.” Axios accused Trump of enacting a "string of Putin-friendly moves," while Vox claimed that “Trump’s embrace of Putin is different this time.” Democrat James Carville even suggested that Trump pushed for a ceasefire to help Putin “regroup.”
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
This accusation, however, isn't only directed at Trump; it's meant for any American who sees the Ukraine quagmire through the lens of reality.
If you don't enthusiastically support Ukraine, or you oppose continued American funding of the war, or question the dominant narrative about Ukraine, Russia, and Zelenskyy, you are labeled a "pro-Putin" apologist.
It's a leftist tactic — now used by bad-faith critics across the political spectrum — meant to bully you into silence for questioning the approved narrative.
The cohort that demands total support for Ukraine wants you to believe the war is an existential battle between good and evil and for the preservation of freedom (i.e. "democracy").
Ironically, much of this cohort traditionally opposed American intervention in foreign wars. What changed?
Framing the Ukraine war as an existential battle that demands American support — if you are on the side of "good" and "democracy," anyway — is not proof of sudden trust in the U.S. war machine. Rather, it's a change in how moral authority is wielded. By their logic, anyone who does not give their complete support to Ukraine is an enemy of (their) progress.
Clearly, this "moral authority" is not fixed in objective reality. Instead, it's conveniently selective, and it perfectly aligns with the left's political objectives.
Moreover, framing support for Ukraine as a moral and existential issue — and declaring objectors to be pro-Kremlin authoritarian stooges — is an intellectually dishonest false binary.
It moves the goalposts and neglects the real and legitimate concerns about the war, including:
The true moral cost of the war is counted in human lives. While the exact number of casualties remains a secret, the human toll of the war is likely calculated in hundreds of thousands of dead and injured soldiers. And if you consider refugees and other innocent displaced people, that figure rises into the millions.
If the pro-Ukrainian cohort were truly concerned about morality, they would demand an immediate end to the war and seek the most realistic path to stop the fighting — not cheer for it to continue under the guise of "justice" and "democracy."
Don't get me wrong: Russia is responsible for the war because it launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
But geopolitics do not happen in a vacuum.
Why this war happened at all is a complicated matter beyond my expertise, but the truth about the war and how to move forward is not found in the black-and-white narrative the media, Democrats, and the pro-Ukraine cohort have pushed for three years. To understand the war on its own terms requires acknowledgment that history in that part of the world is complicated and that neither the United States nor NATO are innocent.
The only way to bring the war to an end is to grapple with this complicated reality. Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to face the facts as they exist.
Russell Moore, editor of Christianity Today, frames support for Ukraine in highly biblical and moral terms, suggesting that not supporting Ukraine's continued resistance (i.e., prolonging the war) is akin to being the wicked King Ahab or Cain, the Bible's first murderer.
"Who would you rather be, Naboth or Ahab? Abel or Cain?" Moore recently wrote. "The answer to these questions might not solve the war in Europe, but it will reveal something about you."
Moore even argued that one of the "most dangerous" arguments about the war is "the suggestion that Ukraine is fated to lose."
This argument is a textbook example of emotional blackmail, one that refuses to grapple with truth.
But it's clear today, as it has been for several years now, that prolonged fighting is not going end the war. Assessing the morality of the war, therefore, requires us to face reality.
R.R. Reno, writing about the war as it stands today, said it best:
I return to the moral principles of just war. Among them is the following: It is immoral to unleash the violence of war when objectives cannot be achieved, however just those objectives may be. The Ukrainian army is unable to bring an end to hostilities by achieving victory. The nations of the West are unwilling to enter the fray with sufficient force and commitment. These seem to be indisputable facts. Moral reasoning must reckon with realities. Trump’s thinking is far removed from reflection on just war theory. But he is acknowledging reality and taking the steps necessary to put an end to a war that cannot be won.
Americans — and Christians, especially — should heed Reno's sobering analysis. Otherwise, America will continue to support a war that, at present, has no clear end in sight.
We must continue to question with boldness, not giving blind allegiance to the dominant narrative about the war. And we must refuse to be bullied into silence when we question that narrative.
Democrats, the media, and the pro-Ukrainian cohort can weaponize morality all they want — but they don't own it. Shaming Americans and Christians for asking questions or not accepting their narrative doesn't make them right. The truth is that wanting the war to end doesn't make you "pro-Putin." Such a desire only means you are facing reality as it exists on the ground.
This war must end. The killing must stop. And no amount of emotional blackmail and name-calling will change that.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is a thief. Ukraine’s little dictator has overseen the misuse of billions in American taxpayer dollars — amassing a vast personal fortune while running arguably the most corrupt nation in Europe. Ukraine has become little more than an organized crime state.
Donald Trump and his America First team have long been aware of the depth of Zelenskyy’s venality, but his insulting, disrespectful, and churlish spectacle in the Oval Office revealed the truth of his intentions and behavior. Now, Trump “will lean into a Ukraine fraud probe,” shining the light on Zelenskyy’s serious crimes.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy is an anti-American globalist puppet and thief who belongs in prison.
The DOGE is on the case, and Elon Musk has Zelenskyy’s number. Musk describes the dictator’s regime as a “massive graft machine feeding off the dead bodies of Ukrainian soldiers.”
The magnitude of the thievery is staggering. But the malfeasance by the warmongers in Congress and the mainstream media’s continual cover-ups have hidden the full extent of Ukraine’s corruption.
When the initial $60 billion for the globalist proxy war against Russia in Ukraine was being allocated, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) stood up for American taxpayers, proposing an inspector general and audit to track how military aid was being spent. But the warmongers shot them down. There would be no oversight, no accountability, and little reporting of the epic plunder that followed. But this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Last month, Zelenskyy, while claiming that Ukraine had received just $75 billion of the $177 billion in U.S. aid, stated nonchalantly, "I don't know where all this money is." Here are a few places to look.
Early in the war, a now-censored CBS report revealed that due to theft and diversion to the black market, ”only 30%” of American equipment was reaching the front lines. Some of the weapons ended up in the hands of criminal gangs in Sweden and terrorists in Nigeria. Last year, the Pentagon admitted that it had failed to track $1 billion in weapons deliveries, mainly small arms — including Javelin and Stinger missiles — ideal for arms traffickers.
Ukrainian soldiers are cannon fodder. The Zelenskyy regime’s contempt for its troops is made apparent by how it spends — and steals — money.
In January 2024, executives from a Ukrainian arms company and officials from Zelenskyy’s defense ministry embezzled $40 million meant to buy 100,000 mortar shells. A retired Ukrainian general revealed that $207 million was grifted in purchasing hundreds of thousands of useless anti-tank mines produced during World War II — decades past their expiration date.
In January, American money bought hand grenades filled with cornmeal instead of explosives. In November, U.S. taxpayers paid for 100,000 Ukrainian-produced mortar shells that wouldn’t fire because they got stuck in the mortar barrels. In October, Kyiv’s defense minister acknowledged that 20% of all artillery ammunition fired by the Ukrainians failed to detonate.
Have you ever wondered why Ukrainian soldiers are freezing on the front lines? Zelenskyy’s cronies paid $86 million to the Ukrainian owner of a sham company in Turkey for 200,000 winter uniforms. The problem? They were actually summer uniforms, “unfit for their intended purpose as winter clothing” — and valued at only $29 million.
Ukraine’s corruption even touches the food distributed on the front lines. Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov supplied the military with eggs purchased at three times the market price. "Reznikov eggs" has become the Ukrainian soldiers’ euphemism for corruption within their military.
The vast majority of Ukrainians — 89% according to one survey — say that corruption is the country’s most serious problem after the war with Russia, and 94% believe corruption is pervasive across Ukraine. As many as 42% of Ukrainian households pay bribes to access public services, and 78% believe Zelenskyy is “directly responsible” for the corruption.
Recruitment officials pocket millions of dollars in bribes, allowing those with money to dodge military conscription. Meanwhile, men who can’t afford to pay are snatched off the street, thrown into frontline trenches, and shoved into the meat grinder. To evade service, 860,000 men have fled to the European Union, and 800,000 more are hiding in Ukraine.
Zelenskyy officials have stolen entire trainloads of civilian aid. According to a senior Zelenskyy adviser, people at the top are “stealing like there is no tomorrow.” To add insult to injury, American taxpayers pay the salaries and pensions of these crooks.
Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reports that Zelenskyy and his closest allies embezzled at least $400 million in a single year by skimming U.S. funds earmarked for procuring diesel fuel. An intelligence officer told Hersh, “Zelenskyy had been buying the [discount diesel] fuel from Russia … skimming untold millions from the American dollars earmarked for diesel fuel payments.”
The CIA grew concerned about the rampant corruption, so in January 2023, CIA Director William Burns met with Zelenskyy and his band of thieves in Kyiv to address the problem. Hersh described the meeting as a scene from “a 1950s mob movie.” He relates, “The senior generals and government officials in Kyiv were angry at what they saw as Zelenskyy’s greed … because he was taking a larger share of the skim money than was going to the generals.” Moreover, Hersh says the level of corruption in Ukraine is “approaching that of the Afghan war.”
Even in the Ukrainian parliament — where Zelenskyy has banned 11 opposition parties — voices of dissent are finally being heard. Zelenskyy is finished.
Verkhovna Rada Deputy Alexander Dubinsky has called for Zelenskyy’s impeachment, blasting him for his authoritarian suppression of democracy, disastrous war policies, and public buffoonery.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy is an anti-American globalist puppet and thief who belongs in prison. Trump should cut him loose, expose the fraud, and bring peace and democracy to Ukraine.
Ukrainian officials have reached a ceasefire agreement with the U.S. for 30 days and will try to get Russia to accept the deal, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Rubio made the announcement on Tuesday from Saudi Arabia, where he met with officials in order to hammer out the deal. Russia was not a part of those negotiations.
'The dying will stop, and the talks can begin about how to end this war permanently ...'
“I think today, Ukraine has taken a concrete step in that regard. We hope the Russians will reciprocate,” said Rubio. “Our hope is that the Russians will say yes, that they will also agree. So the shooting will stop. The killing will stop. The dying will stop, and the talks can begin about how to end this war permanently in a way that’s acceptable and enduring for both sides.”
The U.S. had temporarily suspended military aid as well as intelligence-sharing with Ukraine, but those will be restored after the deal.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had gone to the White House in expectation of signing a minerals deal with President Donald Trump late last month, but that meeting exploded into a shouting match and ended with the Ukrainian president leaving without an agreement.
He has since apologized and thanked the U.S. for its support, something that Vice President JD Vance had demanded.
This is a developing story, and additional information may be added.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The son of former U.S. diplomat Victoria Nuland has some explaining to do.
Nuland’s son, David Kagan, attempted to stop Zelenskyy from signing the rare-earth minerals deal with Trump to end the war in Ukraine.
“He’s listed as a researcher contributing to the Center for European Policy Analysis,” Natalie Winters, co-host and White House correspondent of “Steve Bannon’s War Room,” tells Jill Savage and Christopher Bedford on “Blaze News Tonight.”
“This shows you how it is not just a family grift, but it really is the Washington consensus,” Winters continues. “Everyone in the Nuland family makes a paycheck off of killing young American boys and girls in the name of democracy.”
Victoria Nuland was the third-highest-ranking U.S. diplomat and served as the undersecretary of state for political affairs from 2021 to 2024.
“Now we know that days before the Trump-Zelenskyy meeting that this group that her son is involved with, the Center for European Policy Analysis, was actively opposing a deal that could have eased tensions,” Savage comments.
Of course, ending the war in Ukraine would save countless lives — but that’s not at the top of these bureaucrats' minds.
“They do not care about the lives of young men, young women, young Americans. They just want to continue these forever wars, and they’ve identified Ukraine as sort of their next avenue to do that,” Winters comments, noting that in the case of the Nulands, this lack of care for human life seems to run in the family.
To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Vice President JD Vance was confronted near his Ohio home by a group of protesters over the weekend who questioned him about the war between Russia and Ukraine.
In a Saturday post on X, Vance slammed the demonstrators for "chasing" him while he was with his 3-year-old daughter.
'Selling them out!'
"Today while walking my 3 year old daughter a group of 'Slava Ukraini' protesters followed us around and shouted as my daughter grew increasingly anxious and scared," Vance wrote. "I decided to speak with the protesters in the hopes that I could trade a few minutes of conversation for them leaving my toddler alone. (Nearly all of them agreed.)"
He added, "It was a mostly respectful conversation, but if you're chasing a 3-year-old as part of a political protest, you're a s*** person."
— (@)
WCPO reported that the group of pro-Ukraine protesters were on their way to a nearby rally. Demonstrators held multi-day protests over the weekend, according to WKRC.
A video obtained by WCPO of Vance's exchange with the protesters showed the vice president responding to numerous questions and accusations.
"People are dying!" one woman shouted at Vance.
"We think it's in the best interest of our [own people] and frankly in the best interest of the Ukrainians for the war to stop," he responded.
Multiple protesters accused the Trump administration of betraying the Ukrainians.
"Selling them out!" one woman yelled repeatedly.
"With respect, ma'am, I disagree," Vance said. "I think that what we're doing is we're actually forcing a diplomatic settlement."
Protesters interrupted the vice president with more comments and questions, including accusing the administration of lacking integrity.
"It must be nice to go through life assuming that everybody who disagrees with you has no integrity," Vance responded.
When Vance announced he was ending the conversation after speaking with the protesters for roughly five minutes, one demonstrator insisted that he had "signed up for this job."
"That's what you agreed to," she added.
"Ma'am, I did not agree to have my 3-year-old — to have people run around and yell at her. And I did talk to you, and I had said, 'If I talk to you for a few minutes, will you leave my 3-year-old daughter alone?' And you said, 'Yes.' So I'd like you guys to respect that. Thank you all," Vance stated.
Ann Henry, the protester who shared the video with WCPO, told the news outlet that Vance misrepresented the exchange in his post on X.
"No one was chasing him," Henry said, claiming that the group spontaneously ran into the vice president.
"We all wanted it to be respectful and calm. We just really wanted to know what was really bothering us," she stated.
Henry credited Vance for speaking with them but added, "I just wish he wouldn't have characterized it the way he did on [X]."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
During his speech to Congress on Tuesday, President Donald Trump faced an unexpected disruption when security removed U.S. Rep. Al Green, a Democrat from Texas, for causing a disturbance. The incident raised a question: Are Green and his fellow Democrats taking their opposition to Trump too far?
Democratic mayors and governors are increasingly pushing to shield illegal immigrants, including those convicted of serious crimes, from deportation. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, along with the mayors of Chicago, Denver, Boston, and Houston, have publicly defended allowing convicted rapists and drug smugglers to remain in their communities. They frame this stance as a defense against what they view as a hostile federal administration.
Should the likes of Jasmine Crockett, Jamie Raskin, JB Pritzker, Al Green, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez define the Democratic message, or should Democrats aim to sound more like mainstream Americans rather than woke wackos?
Senate Democrats are also supporting policies that permit biological men to compete in women’s sports and use girls’ locker rooms. This position contradicts their claims of supporting “women’s rights.” About 80% of Americans oppose these policies, seeing them as threats to women’s privacy and fairness in sports.
A similar majority rejects another key Democratic position: allowing minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria to undergo surgical procedures. Additionally, most Americans disagree with the Democratic assertion that there are more than two sexes. This stance has sparked conflicts, particularly when people are pressured to use pronouns or language that they believe contradicts biological reality.
Democrats’ defense of an already bloated public workforce, especially that based in Washington, is equally puzzling. Do most Americans really support spending billions of dollars each year to keep the Department of Education handing out taxpayer money to woke educational projects nationwide? And after seeing the massive funding from USAID to Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe for LGBTQ indoctrination disguised as foreign aid, it’s fair to ask how many Americans actually see this Democratic spending as a “hill to die on.”
These questions naturally arise for non-leftists watching the direction the Democratic Party has taken since Trump’s victory on November 5. Some Democratic advisers have questioned the party’s current path and have urged a shift toward more moderate positions on social issues.
The party faces a choice: Should the likes of Jasmine Crockett, Jamie Raskin, JB Pritzker, Al Green, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez define the Democratic message, or should Democrats aim to sound more like mainstream Americans rather than woke wackos?
Like Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), I believe congressional Democrats “embarrassed themselves” by refusing to applaud a young boy introduced during Trump’s speech as a brain cancer survivor. Throughout the address, Democratic lawmakers waved signs and made faces to display their opposition. It’s doubtful they took issue with Rep. Green’s rude behavior, which may have been encouraged by his party’s leaders.
The real question is whether these antics damage the Democratic brand. They might have swayed some independents, but they likely had little impact on the polarized ideological camps in the country. Neither Senator Schmitt nor I would vote Democratic, even if the Democrats at Trump’s speech had shown perfect courtesy. We find the party’s cultural politics so repellent that supporting most Democratic politicians is unthinkable. By the same token, I can't imagine any feminist, government worker, or college professor I know voting for a MAGA Republican.
It seems unlikely that Democratic opposition to Trump, no matter how distasteful it appears, will drive a mass shift to the GOP. Democratic voters genuinely dislike Trump. According to a Hill poll from the end of his first month in office, Trump held a 52% approval rating, but 43% disapproved, with most of them expressing strong disapproval. A recent Pew poll also showed that 44% of Americans believe Trump has gone too far in deporting illegal immigrants. It’s not hard to imagine that this large minority aligns with the Democratic Party on other issues and likely shares Democratic politicians' intense disdain for Trump.
The Democrats still have a large core constituency that remains loyal to the party. This base is unlikely to be alienated by the party's resistance tactics or its recent, baffling positions. I see no reason to believe that the American left is outraged by the Democrats' behavior.
In fact, a glance at the legacy media online suggests otherwise. The focus has returned to portraying Trump as an ally of Vladimir Putin, dominating left-leaning news coverage. Issues like allowing biological men into women's locker rooms, Al Green's outburst, or the party’s willingness to shield this lout from congressional censure seem to have taken a back seat. So be it. The Democrats will reap what they sow.
Idiots like Russell Moore should abstain from using historical analogies in their pitiful attempts to influence the public discourse.
www.theblaze.com