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.
Timothy Snyder may not be well known in American conservative circles, but his European influence is substantial. I hadn’t heard of the Yale historian until I moved to Vienna, Austria, where he enjoys a kind of celebrity status. European leaders frequently refer to his ideas, whether they are criticizing Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency or comparing JD Vance’s criticism of censorship at the Munich Security Conference last month to the Holocaust. These talking points have crossed the Atlantic, reaching U.S. media through figures like CBS News moderator Margaret Brennan. Snyder’s influence among the American left continues to grow.
I recently attended Snyder’s “Making Sense of an Unsettling World” lecture at Vienna’s Institute for Human Sciences. His casual demeanor, paired with a Zelenskyy-style quarter-zip — a nod to the Ukrainian leader he has met and advised — reinforces his “rebel professor” image. This blend of defiance and intellect captivates and galvanizes college students, making Snyder both a compelling and polarizing figure.
Snyder’s call to 'defend institutions' fails to recognize that institutions can be corrupt, bloated, and unaccountable.
After the predictable barrage of ad hominem attacks on Trump — of which there were many — Snyder shifted his focus to the most controversial figure in the administration: Elon Musk. As Snyder spoke, I couldn’t help but notice the vast ideological divide between the left and the right. This gap felt particularly sobering, not just because of its seemingly unbridgeable nature but also because Snyder's perspective undermines the very foundation necessary to bridge such divides: dissent and dialogue enabled by free speech.
Snyder accuses Musk of building a privatized, fascistic government by dismantling America's institutions. According to Snyder, we common folk are mere pawns in Musk’s algorithmic “system,” which he claims is designed to predict and manipulate human behavior. The goal, Snyder argues, is clear: to destroy institutions, privatize government functions, and siphon taxpayer dollars into Musk’s pockets.
Snyder’s argument centers on a critique of the conservative notion of “negative freedom” — the idea that freedom is best preserved by minimizing external restraints on the individual. He dismisses this concept as “freedom against,” portraying it as a tool ripe for exploitation by figures like Elon Musk. In Snyder's view, Musk uses this version of freedom to turn the masses “against” institutions, only to privatize them for personal gain later.
In contrast, Snyder champions the left-leaning principle of “positive freedom,” or “freedom for.”This approach suggests that freedom is only legitimate when exercised in service of ideals codified and enforced through institutions. According to Snyder's 2016 manifesto, which evolved into his New York Times best-selling pamphlet "On Tyranny," institutions “preserve human decency” and serve as the greatest barriers to tyranny. In this framework, Musk emerges as Snyder’s villain, a modern-day figure following in the footsteps of 20th-century fascists who dismantled institutions to consolidate power.
Snyder’s alarmism about Musk exposes the deep divide between the left and right on the nature of freedom and the role of institutions. While critiques of corporate and political power are valid, Snyder’s perspective assumes that institutions should be defended without question, a stance that conflicts with conservatives’ healthy skepticism of concentrated power — a skepticism the left once shared.
Positive freedom, as Snyder envisions it, relies on the belief that government can act as a benevolent force. This assumption contradicts James Madison’s warning that “if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” But angels don’t govern us. Washington bureaucrats are subject to the same ills and vices that make government over the masses necessary. Defending institutional authority without scrutiny undermines the conservative commitment to negative freedom — the principle that individual liberties should be checks against excessive power.
Snyder’s solution, then, is not just to oppose authoritarian figures but to resist decentralization itself. He cites Aristotle and Plato to argue that inequality leads to instability and that demagogues exploit free speech to seize power. In Snyder’s world, speech is only “free” when it supports institutional interests rather than challenges them. Yet his call to “defend institutions” fails to recognize that institutions can be corrupt, bloated, and unaccountable. Snyder assumes institutions are inherently legitimate, ignoring the need for them to be accountable to the people they serve.
Snyder’s argument falls apart here. The left's crusade against so-called oligarchs like Musk isn’t about returning power to the people — it’s about re-centralizing it under authorities leftists consider ideologically acceptable.
Negative freedom is dangerous to them because it allows individuals to dissent, challenge state-sanctioned narratives, and question institutional orthodoxy. Yet it is precisely this freedom that has protected human decency from the imposition of top-down tyranny.
Snyder is right that institutions should be defended when they uphold the people's dignity, rights, and liberties. But just as institutions act as a check on the whims of the populace, the dissent of the people serves as a vital check on the inherent corruptibility of institutions. As Madison argued, both safeguards are essential.
When Snyder and his growing following on the global left seek to suppress dissent for the sake of institutional authority, they don’t prevent tyranny — they empower it.
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com