Ukrainian officials plotted to direct massive sums of US taxpayer aid to Biden's campaign: Intel report



Ukrainian government communications discussed a scheme to direct American taxpayer dollars to then-President Joe Biden’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee to boost Biden’s 2024 re-election bid against President Donald Trump, according to an intelligence report obtained by Just the News.

The newly unclassified documents summarize raw intercepts from U.S. spy agencies in late 2022. Officials who reviewed the files stated that there was a lack of curiosity to investigate the allegations under the Biden administration, the news outlet reported.

'In this manner, most of the US funding would be diverted to Joe Biden’s election campaign without the ability to track where exactly the funds came from.'

The American tax dollars were intended to fund a clean energy project in Ukraine amid the ongoing war with Russia.

“The Ukrainian Government and unspecified U.S. Government personnel, through USAID in Kyiv, reportedly developed a plan that would provide hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund an infrastructure project for Ukraine that would be used as a cover to send approximately 90% of funds allocated to the DNC to fund Joe Biden’s re-election campaign,” the report read, according to Just the News.

“They were confident the project would be funded initially, even though at some time in the future the project would be disapproved as unnecessary. At this time, the money would already be allocated and impossible to return or use for a different purpose,” it added.

The report named two American subcontractors that could potentially receive the funds, officials told Just the News. However, those names were redacted in the report obtained by the news outlet.

RELATED: 'USADF is garbage': Senior US foreign aid official will plead guilty to taking kickbacks, lying to feds

Donald Trump, Joe Biden. Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

“The plan included details of how subcontractors would be funded through U.S. companies so that how the funds were spent and allocated would be difficult to track,” the report continued. “Additionally, contracts would be executed that would be difficult to verify. In this manner, most of the U.S. funding would be diverted to Joe Biden’s election campaign without the ability to track where exactly the funds came from.”

Just the News reported that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard recently learned about the intelligence intercepts. She reportedly asked USAID officials to review their records to ascertain whether the alleged scheme was executed and whether a criminal referral should be made to the FBI.

RELATED: Tulsi Gabbard warns: Powerful foreign allies eager to pull US into war with Russia

Tulsi Gabbard. Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

An official told the news outlet that Gabbard’s team has not found substantive evidence indicating that the allegations were thoroughly investigated under Biden’s leadership. The official noted that the communications are not believed to be linked to Russian disinformation efforts.

Trump shared the Just the News article in a post on social media.

In a statement to Blaze News, a spokesperson for Gabbard confirmed the existence of related intelligence, adding that the director’s team is “working to review USAID holdings.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Tulsi Gabbard warns: Powerful foreign allies eager to pull US into war with Russia



Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told the AmericaFest crowd in Phoenix, Arizona, on Saturday that key global allies are hoping to drag the United States into a war with Russia.

Gabbard explained that the "warmongers in the deep state" are blocking Russia and Ukraine from reaching a peace agreement, undermining President Donald Trump's efforts.

'We cannot allow this to happen.'

"Predictably, they use the same old tactics that they've always used. The deep state within the intelligence community weaponizes 'intelligence' to try to undermine progress," she stated, motioning air quotes.

Gabbard said these deep-staters then leak that so-called "intelligence" to their friends in the "mainstream propaganda media" to propel a false narrative.

She went on to accuse the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization of wanting to pull the U.S. into direct battle with Russia.

RELATED: Frustrated Trump calls for Ukrainian election after Zelenskyy seemingly torpedoes another peace opportunity

President Donald Trump. Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

"[Deep-staters] foment fear and hysteria as a way to justify the continuing of the war and their efforts to undermine President Trump's efforts towards peace," Gabbard said. "And do so in this case in order to try to pull the U.S. military into a direct conflict with Russia, which is ultimately what the EU and NATO want."

"We cannot allow this to happen," she declared.

— (@)

During her AmFest speech, Gabbard also warned about the threat of Islamist ideology.

"There's a threat to our freedom that is not often talked about enough. And it is the greatest near- and long-term threat to both our freedom and our security, and that is the threat of Islamist ideology," she said.

Gabbard's comments prompted cheers and applause from the audience.

RELATED: European leaders gossip about US amid apparent efforts to torpedo Trump's Russia-Ukraine peace deal: Report

President Donald Trump, DNI Tulsi Gabbard. Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

She argued that, at its core, Islam is a political ideology that seeks to implement a "global caliphate" that would destroy freedom through Sharia law.

"This is already underway in places like Houston. This is not something that may possibly happen; it is already happening here within our borders," she continued. "Paterson, New Jersey, is proud to call themselves the first Muslim city."

You can view Gabbard's remarks about Islamist ideology beginning at the 6:50 mark in the below video:

RELATED: Secret Sharia ‘courts’ in Texas may be quietly overriding state law — Abbott calls for investigation

Gabbard added that Islamist ideology "is propagated by people who not only do not believe in freedom, their fundamental ideology is antithetical to the foundation that we find in our Constitution and Bill of Rights, which is that our Creator endowed upon us inalienable rights. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Survival over pride: The true test for Ukraine and Russia



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

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

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

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

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

Peace requires concessions

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

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

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

RELATED: Trump says he knows exactly why Putin wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine if he was president

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

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

Peace or bloodshed?

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

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

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.

Trump Blasts Media’s ‘Dishonest’ Coverage Of Russia-Ukraine Negotiations

President Trump blasted the legacy media’s “great dishonesty” in their coverage of his attempts to peacefully end the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. The moment came on Monday during a White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky about a potential peace deal with Moscow. While taking questions from reporters, Trump was asked about the press’s coverage […]

The Ukraine War Was Always Going To End This Way

From the very beginning it was clear that Ukraine’s borders, a relic of Soviet propaganda, would have to change.

Trump is optimistic ahead of Putin meeting — predicts 25% chance of failure



U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are slated to meet Friday in Alaska. Trump has referred to the upcoming summit as a "feel-out meeting" to determine the likelihood of reaching a ceasefire agreement and ultimately an end to the conflict with Ukraine.

Trump stated in the days leading up to the summit that if the talks are successful, there is a chance they will remain in Alaska longer than initially planned to host a second meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

'Trump is not likely to suffer another Putin ploy to string him along, making this meeting more consequential and high-risk for Moscow, with secondary sanctions and tariffs already placing a cost on those still supporting or doing business with Russia.'

Trump is optimistic that Putin "wants to get it done," though he noted that there is a 25% chance the meeting will be a failure.

"I believe now he's convinced that he's going to make a deal," Trump said. "I'm going to know very quickly."

Secretary of State Marco Rubio made similar remarks ahead of Friday's summit, stating that the administration will know "very early" in the meeting "whether something is possible or not."

Trump has vowed to implement "very severe consequences," including sanctions, if Putin refuses to advance peace talks.

RELATED: Trump 'bothered' after Zelenskyy shoots down compromises ahead of peace summit

Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

He indicated that negotiations between Putin and Zelenskyy would likely require some "land swapping" that would be "good" and "bad" for both countries.

"Russia has occupied a big portion of Ukraine," Trump stated. "They've occupied some very prime territory. We're going to try and get some of that territory back for Ukraine."

Zelenskyy rejected Trump's land swapping idea, stating that Ukraine "will not give land to the occupier."

On Thursday, Putin said that the Trump administration was "making, in my opinion, quite energetic and sincere efforts to stop the hostilities, stop the crisis and reach agreements that are of interest to all parties involved in this conflict."

Zelenskyy is less optimistic about the upcoming meeting, claiming that Russia has shown "no sign" that it is preparing to end the war.

"Our coordinated efforts and joint actions — of Ukraine, the United States, Europe, and all countries that seek peace — can definitely compel Russia to make peace," Zelenskyy said.

He has accused Russia of “dragging out the war,” insisting that “it deserves stronger global pressure.”

“Russia refuses to stop the killings, and therefore must not receive any rewards or benefits. And this is not just a moral position — it is a rational one. Concessions do not persuade a killer. But truly strong protection of life stops the killers,” he wrote in a post on social media.

RELATED: Vance makes one thing abundantly clear ahead of Trump's big ceasefire meeting with Putin

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Regardless of the outcome of Friday's meeting with Putin, Trump intends to speak with the press afterward. However, it remains undecided whether the press conference will be addressed jointly.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt previously indicated that Trump and Putin would hold a press conference together, but Trump later appeared to walk back those plans.

"If it's negative, I'll have a press conference to say that the war is going to go on and these people are horribly going to continue to shoot each other and kill each other, and I think it's a disgrace, and I'll head back to Washington," Trump said. "Or I'll have a press conference that's positive."

Trump plans to call European leaders and Zelenskyy after his meeting with Putin to discuss next steps. He promised that the next meeting would involve both Putin and Zelenskyy.

"I will put the two of them in a room," he said. "I think it will get solved."

Trump is scheduled to meet with Putin at Alaska’s Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson around 3:00 p.m. Eastern.

Brent Sadler, a national security senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation, told Blaze News, “The best outcome is Putin beginning to talk and giving up his maximalist approach to negotiations. Trump is not likely to suffer another Putin ploy to string him along, making this meeting more consequential and high-risk for Moscow, with secondary sanctions and tariffs already placing a cost on those still supporting or doing business with Russia.”

When contacted for a comment, the White House directed Blaze News to the statements made by Trump and Leavitt ahead of the summit.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Why the right turned anti-war — and should stay that way



After the COVID lockdowns, the Western global leadership class had little credibility left. So it seemed insane when they immediately pivoted to a new crisis — but that’s exactly what they did.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered demands from elites in Europe and America for NATO-aligned nations to involve themselves in the conflict. Many Republicans were initially on board, with Fox News and CNN marching in lockstep behind intervention. But the Republican base quickly soured on the war once it became clear that U.S. involvement didn’t serve American interests.

If the situation really is dire, let the Trump administration make its case to the people. Present the evidence. Debate it in Congress. Vote.

In a strange inversion, the right became anti-war while the left championed military escalation.

That reversal matters now, as some in the GOP look to drag the country into another long conflict. We should remember what Ukraine taught us.

When Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded, many conservatives instinctively aligned with Ukraine. The Soviet Union had been an evil empire and a clear enemy of the United States. It was easy to paint Russia as an extension of that threat. President Biden assured Americans that there would be no boots on the ground and that economic sanctions would cripple Russia quickly.

But the war dragged on. Hundreds of billions of dollars flowed to Ukraine while America entered a painful economic downturn. Conservatives began asking whether this was worth it.

Putin was no friend of the U.S., and conservatives had valid reasons to distrust him. But suddenly, anyone questioning the war effort was smeared as a Russian asset. Opposition to the war became an extension of the left’s deranged Russiagate conspiracy, which painted Donald Trump as a blackmailed Kremlin agent.

Some Republican politicians kept pushing the war. Fox News stayed hawkish. But much of the conservative commentariat broke ranks. They knew that the boys from Appalachia and Texas — exactly the kind of red-state Americans progressives despise — would again be asked to die for a war that served no clear national purpose.

From that disillusionment, conservatives drew hard-earned lessons.

They saw that U.S. leaders lie to sustain foreign conflicts. That politicians in both parties keep wars going because donors profit. That Fox News can become a mouthpiece for military escalation. That you can oppose a war without betraying your country. And that American troops and taxpayer dollars are not playthings for globalist fantasies.

“America First” began to mean something real: Peace through strength didn’t require constant intervention.

Unfortunately, many of those lessons evaporated after the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on Oct. 7.

That attack was horrific. No serious person denies the brutality of Hamas or questions Israel’s right to defend itself. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has treated the attack as a green light to target longtime adversaries, including Iran. As a sovereign nation, Israel can pursue its own foreign policy. But it cannot dictate foreign policy for the United States.

In 2002, Netanyahu testified before Congress that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons. He said toppling both the Iraqi and Iranian regimes would bring peace and stability. He was wrong.

He wasn’t alone, of course. Many were wrong about weapons of mass destruction and the Iraq War. But Netanyahu’s track record is highly relevant now. While conservatives once fervently supported the Iraq invasion after 9/11, many — including Tucker Carlson and Dinesh D’Souza — have since apologized. They admit they got it wrong.

RELATED: The culture war isn’t a distraction — it’s the main front

Blaze Media Illustration

Afghanistan, while flawed, had clearer justification. The Taliban had harbored Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. But the lies about weapons of mass destruction and failed nation-building in Iraq turned that war into a conservative regret.

In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified that Iran had not resumed efforts to build a nuclear weapon. Gabbard, like Trump allies Robert Kennedy Jr., Kash Patel, and Pete Hegseth, was chosen precisely for her skepticism of the intelligence bureaucracy. Trump remembers how his first term was sabotaged by insiders loyal to the status quo. This time, he selected appointees loyal to the voters.

Gabbard’s assessment contradicts Netanyahu, who claims Iran is months away from having a bomb. That’s a massive discrepancy. Either Iran hasn’t restarted its program, or it’s on the brink of building a nuke.

So which is it?

Did U.S. intelligence fail again? Did Gabbard lie to Congress and the public? Or did she simply say something the ruling class didn’t want to hear?

Trump, Gabbard, and Vice President JD Vance understand how Iraq went wrong. They know Americans deserve evidence before another war — especially one that risks dragging us into a region we’ve already failed to remake at great cost.

Yet the war hawks keep repeating the same lie: This time, it’ll be quick. The United States is too powerful, too advanced, too economically dominant. The enemy will fold by Christmas.

Biden said the same about Ukraine. And hundreds of billions later, we remain in a grinding proxy war with Russia.

Now, while still financing that war, Americans are told they must back a new war — this one initiated unilaterally by Israel. The U.S. faces domestic strife, crippling debt, and an ongoing open-border crisis. Involvement in yet another conflict makes no sense.

Israel may be right about Iran. Tehran may indeed have developed a nuclear program behind the world’s back. But if Israel wants to wage a war, it must do so on its own.

The Trump administration has made clear that it wasn’t involved in Israel’s pre-emptive strikes and didn’t approve them. If Israel starts a war, it should fight and win that war on its own. America should not be expected to absorb retaliation or commit troops to another Middle Eastern project.

These wars are never short, and they are always expensive.

Even if Iran’s regime collapses quickly, the aftermath would require a long, brutal occupation to prevent it from descending into chaos. Israel doesn’t have the capacity — let alone the political will — for that task. That burden would fall, again, to America.

So before conservatives fall for another round of WMD hysteria, they should recall what the last two wars taught them.

If the situation really is dire, let the Trump administration make its case to the people. Present the evidence. Debate it in Congress. Vote.

But don’t sleepwalk into another forever war.

Dictator, thief, puppet: Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s 3 strikes revealed



The mountain of lies about Ukraine is beginning to crumble under the weight of the truth. The media-crafted façade of Ukraine as a beacon of democracy — and Volodymyr Zelenskyy as the Winston Churchill of our time — is disintegrating. February’s disgraceful Oval Office meeting between President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and the Ukrainian dictator revealed Zelenskyy’s true character.

After Trump made it clear that Ukraine would never join NATO, Zelenskyy responded with open defiance, vowing NATO membership would happen anyway. His message was clear: The war must go on — regardless of the cost to his people. From the beginning, NATO expansion into Ukraine has been the root provocation behind Russia’s so-called "special military operation."

The United States and NATO have waged a proxy war against Russia and for globalism.

This week, Zelenskyy removed any lingering doubt about his intent. He outright rejected President Trump’s peace proposal, effectively sabotaging any meaningful negotiation.

An illegitimate president

Retired Col. Douglas Macgregor recognized Zelenskyy’s role as a puppet early in the war — stunning mainstream media. He sees Zelenskyy as the “globalist enemy within” — undermining any chance for peace. To achieve the most direct path to peace, Macgregor has urged Trump to immediately stop all military and financial aid to Ukraine, dump Zelenskyy, and pull out all American personnel — in or out of uniform.

Zelenskyy’s term expired last May, but he canceled presidential elections to remain in power. Donald Trump has called out Zelenskyy as a “dictator without elections” — and that’s not even the half of it.

Zelenskyy has shut down all nongovernment-controlled media, banned opposition parties, jailed dissidents, and reportedly had critics kidnapped, tortured, or killed. He’s ordered thugs to snatch thousands of men off the streets and shove them into the trenches. He’s outlawed the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, jailing its priests. Meanwhile, his government and military remain riddled with neo-Nazis — a fact the media refuses to address.

Zelenskyy also uses Ukrainian lawfare to lock up members of his own party when they speak out against his corruption.

Dissent silenced

Oleksandr Dubinsky was elected to the Ukrainian Parliament as a member of Zelenskyy’s Servant of the People Party. He is the only MP to speak out against the criminal regime. Dubinsky states, “I’m currently fighting a politically motivated case, filed by Zelensky's [sic] regime, to silence my criticism of his corruption, as well as the corruption of Soros-backed NGOs and the Bidens' connections to Burisma.” In November 2023, Dubinsky was arrested, charged with treason, and thrown into prison, where he remains awaiting trial. From his prison cell, Dubinsky has called for Zelenskyy’s impeachment and announced his intention to run for president — assuming elections are ever allowed again.

In a Kyiv courtroom in February, Dubinsky exposed the SBU, Zelenskyy’s secret police, for their brutal arrest, imprisonment, torture, and murder of American independent journalist Gonzalo Lira — whose only crime was criticizing both the Zelenskyy and Biden regimes.

In a remarkable prison interview, Norwegian scholar Glenn Diesen spoke with Dubinsky — who knows Zelenskyy well. In 2019, both men were allies when Zelenskyy ran as a peace candidate promising normalized relations with Russia. But Dubinsky broke ranks once Zelenskyy aligned with globalist interests, collaborated with the neo-Nazis, and embraced full-on corruption and criminality.

Dubinsky provides a deep insight into Zelenskyy’s motives and exactly who is pulling his strings. “Zelenskyy is the product of the efforts of globalist and liberal elites who saw the war in Ukraine as a tool to consolidate their own power,” Dubinsky said. “Ukraine has become the last stronghold of globalism and Zelenskyy is its figurehead.”

This war has never been about Ukraine. The United States and NATO have waged a proxy war against Russia and for globalism. The ultimate objective of the international globalists — and American neoconservatives — is to destroy and break up Russia. Dubinsky contends there is “no goal of securing Ukraine’s victory. The only objective is to prolong the war.” And their immediate goal? To “undermine President Trump’s peace initiatives.”

Thirty years ago, George Soros conjured up the sinister strategy of sacrificing European Slavs to fight a proxy war with Russia. “The combination of manpower from Eastern Europe with the technical capabilities of NATO,” he wrote, “reduce the risk of body bags for NATO countries.” In Ukraine, the globalists found Zelenskyy, who, for 30 pieces of silver, has obliged, filling NATO body bags with his countrymen.

Before entering politics, Zelenskyy’s day job was as a comedic television actor. Dubinsky, well-versed in Zelenskyy’s theatrics, noted that his Oval Office appearance in February — including his costume choice — was “a deliberate performance designed to sabotage negotiations.” Mission accomplished.

A neocon’s dream

The globalists and neocons set a trap. Trump walked into it — and now, he must walk back out.

I still believe Trump sincerely wants to disengage from Ukraine and bring peace. But if he allows American military and financial support of the Zelenskyy dictatorship to continue, any peace will be impossible. Since his inauguration, the president has talked about peace in Ukraine but has maintained the Biden status quo. That’s not going to cut it now.

Trump won because he was the peace candidate with a revolutionary anti-war, anti-globalist pledge: “There must ... be a complete commitment to dismantling the entire globalist neocon establishment that is perpetually dragging us into endless wars.” This was a bombshell. But as the initial shock of Trump’s victory has worn off and the commitment to dismantle the neocon establishment has not been acted upon, the “globalist neocon establishment” has regrouped and is back on the attack.

In Europe, Zelenskyy and his globalist masters in the European Union and NATO openly defy Trump, calling for a prolonged war and NATO membership for Ukraine. Here at home, neoconservatives at all levels of the military-industrial-congressional complex — and their mainstream media — openly undermine him.

In April, Gen. Christopher Cavoli, commander of U.S. European Command and NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee to report on the status of the war. In a profoundly dishonest presentation, Cavoli made a case for prolonging the war and avoiding a negotiated settlement.

Cavoli’s remarks were an inspiration to Zelenskyy and a slap in the face to Trump. The fact that he could defy and insult his commander in chief with total impunity reveals just how deeply entrenched the neocon power structure remains.

Dictator, thief, and globalist puppet

To save Ukraine — and his presidency — Trump must break free from the neocons and globalists once and for all and stop all aid to Ukraine.

People are beginning to understand who Zelenskyy really is. My previous essays made clear that he is a dictator and a thief. Now, we know that he is also a globalist puppet sabotaging peace in Ukraine. Three strikes, and you’re out.

No choice for Canadian voters when it comes to sending billions to Ukraine



Say what you will about Donald Trump — he knows how to drum up publicity. He's even managed to interest Americans in Canada’s upcoming federal election, now less than a week away.

The president's influence on the contest was all but guaranteed last month, when he made good on his threats to levy a 25% tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum — with further duties on lumber and pharmaceuticals a possibility.

Despite his ostensible Canada-first outlook, Pierre Poilievre has been in lockstep with the Liberal government policy on Ukraine for over three years.

Prior to this movie, Pierre Poilievre's Conservative Party was strongly favored to unseat the reigning Liberal Party, led by Justin Trudeau successor Mark Carney.

Not so today.

Agreeing to agree

The Liberals have benefited from a surge of Canadian antipathy toward Trump, to the extent that they now seem to be running more against the American president than the opposition Conservative Party — something that the American media has not failed to notice. For his part, Trump has actually endorsed Carney.

With the April 28 election looming, what has become a two-party race between Liberals and Conservatives remains close.

While the vote may serve as a referendum on Trump's economic policy, another issue has proven depressingly uncontroversial: support for Ukraine. For all of their differences, Canada's four major political parties all share a turgid and demented determination to continue to pour billions of dollars into the black hole of Kyiv.

This despite Trump’s repeated pledge to end the Russia-Ukraine war. While saying he could do it in a mere 24 hours may have been typical Trumpian hyperbole, it's clear that securing peace remains a priority for the president.

Biden's folly

One need only look at what happened under the previous administration to understand why. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was a regular visitor to the Biden White House, always clad in his odd mixture of combat gear and activewear — and never leaving empty handed.

The engagement of U.S. and NATO military personnel alongside Ukrainian soldiers, as well as the use of American and British missiles to strike the Russian heartland, brought America perilously close to nuclear war with Russia. Seeing the horrible potential for a third world war, both Trump and then-Senator JD Vance urged caution and encouraged peace.

Incredibly, Canada seems not to have taken the hint.

Alone and outgunned

Even as Trump slowly but surely extricates the U.S. from supporting Ukraine and distances itself from NATO members who delusionally believe they can either take on Russia in a conventional war or somehow survive a nuclear one, Canadian political leaders talk about going it alone against Russia without America.

This is beyond ludicrous. Canada does not have a single operational tank left after giving all of its working Leopard models to Ukraine. It has yet to replenished the vast quantities of armaments it has given Ukraine; in fact, it is unable to do so. The U.K.’s military is also a shell of what it was, say, in 1982, when Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher went to war over the Falkland Islands.

Besides, the war is effectively over. Ukraine cannot continue to furnish more troops for the battlefield even if it continues to abduct recruits from the streets and bars. Anyone who advocates the continuation of the war is, knowingly or not, arguing for the killing of an entire generation of Ukrainians. It is a consummation that might have already occurred.

Not up for debate?

Canadians should demand to know why all four party leaders at the English-language leaders’ debate in Montreal last Thursday stood foursquare behind that policy.

Yes, such painful pandering should be expected from Carney, as well as Bloc Quebecois (separatist) chief Yves-Francois Blanchet and New Democratic Party boss Jagmeet Singh. But Poilievre?

Despite his ostensible Canada-first outlook, the politician has been in lockstep with the Liberal government policy on Ukraine for over three years.

When asked how a Conservative government would respond to Zelenskyy’s continued demands for money and armaments, Poilievre responded, “I believe we should continue to support Ukraine. Our party supported donating missiles that the Canadian military was decommissioning. We supported funds and other armaments to back the Ukrainians in the defense of their sovereignty.”

Knowing full well how unpopular this view is with his conservative base, Poilievre quickly tried to change the subject, emphasizing the need “to rebuild our own Canadian military, because the Russians want to make incursions into our waters."

"We'll be buying four massive Arctic ice breakers," Poilievre continued. "I'll be opening the first Arctic base since the Cold War in Canada, CFB, Iqaluit.”

Fleshing it out

That wasn’t good enough for the debate moderator, who pressed Poilievre to “put a little more flesh on the bone of what you think Canada could do for Ukraine.” His response:

My answer is that we should continue to support Ukraine. We don't need to follow the Americans in everything they do when they're wrong, then we will stand on our own and with other allies and with respect to Ukraine, that includes support with intelligence equipment, armaments, but it also includes defunding Putin. Right now, Vladimir Putin has a monopoly on the European energy market because, frankly, the liberals blocked exports of Canadian natural gas off the Atlantic coast. They blocked multiple projects. I would rapidly approve those projects on national security grounds, so that we can, we can actually ship Canadian natural gas over to Europe, break European dependence on Putin, defund the war, and turn dollars for dictators back into paychecks for our people.

Nice try, but it still adds up to flaky policy based on a perceived need to appease the Ukrainian-Canadian vote that is preponderant in many key constituencies across Canada — a vote that generally goes to the Liberals.

Poilievre's words may also alienate Conservatives to the point that they decide not to vote at all — or to give their vote to the one Canadian party that opposes aid to Ukraine: Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party of Canada.

Maxime effort

People's Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier campaigns in Edmonton April 18. NurPhoto/Getty Images

A libertarian alternative that has fielded candidates in every Canadian riding and could actually capture one or two this election, the PPC lacked the 5% share of national voters necessary to participate in the debate.

Nevertheless, Bernier continues to speak for all Canadians fed up with their country's involvement in this endless and expensive quagmire.

As he told Align:

The war in Ukraine is not a conflict between good and evil, or autocracy versus democracy. It’s a longstanding conflict over border territories between these two countries that has been amplified and turned into a proxy war by NATO and the imperialist warmongers in Washington and other western capitals.

It doesn’t concern Canada and we should have nothing to do with it. Russia is not our enemy. The only reason Canada is so involved is that the establishment parties are pandering to Canadians of Ukrainian descent.

It's a message that deserves a wider hearing and could resonate with Canadians fed up with the endless and expensive quagmire.

FACT CHECK: No, Outlet Did Not Report 70,000 Ukrainian Troops Died In Kursk

A post shared on X claims a British outlet reported 70,000 Ukrainian troops died in Kursk. UK Newspaper says 70,000 Ukrainian Soldiers perished in Kursk. Seems awfully high, no? pic.twitter.com/YBYPfGFCN0 — DD Geopolitics (@DD_Geopolitics) March 15, 2025 Verdict: False There is no evidence that this outlet reported this. There is no evidence that 70,000 Ukrainian troops died […]