It’s Time to Cut Off Zelensky and The Ukraine War Effort

I fully understand that I will be accused of being pro-Russian or worse by the neocons and Globalists for taking this view.

I’ve been watching what’s happening with Ukraine, and I want to talk straight with you about why it’s time—past time—for the United States to cut off the endless aid pipeline to Ukraine and stop propping up President Zelenskyy.

I fully understand that I will be accused of being pro-Russian or worse by the neocons and Globalists for taking this view; absurd since I had members of my own family mowed down by Russian tanks in Budapest in 1956 and Robert Mueller’s witch hunt turned up no Russian Collusion by me or anyone else in Donald Trump’s 2016 Campaign, the continued lies of Adam Schiff and his media cabal notwithstanding. Those interested in the falsity of Mueller’s bogus case against me can go here.

First the history of this war: After Russia agreed to the reunification of East and West Germany, the US agreed in both the Budapest Memorandum and the Minsk Accords not to push Ukraine into NATO, which is to say, not to mount NATO missiles in Ukraine aimed at Russia. Why is this any different than the Russian mounting missiles in Cuba 90 miles from our shores in 1962? Barack Obama gave Russia Crimea. Joe Biden started this war which would never have started had Trump rightfully been re-elected in 2020.

President Trump just tried to do something practical and sensible for American families and for energy markets. He announced an energy ceasefire—effective immediately—so that neither side would keep hitting each other’s energy infrastructure.

That matters here at home. High diesel and fuel prices hit truckers, farmers, families at the pump, and manufacturers. Trump’s been clear: Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries have been driving up those costs, and he even worked a deal to get more diesel flowing into global markets. The goal was simple: stop the mutual destruction of energy assets, lower prices, and create space for real negotiations to end this war.

What happened? Within hours and days, the ceasefire was treated as optional. Reports came in of continued strikes on energy targets. Zelensky publicly said Ukraine had paused, then declared “we’re done” and resumed attacks on Russian refineries—hitting places like the Ryazan facility and others. He framed it as a response to Russian actions, and Trump himself noted there have been violations on both sides. But here’s the bottom line for Americans: Ukraine is not treating this as a binding commitment when it conflicts with its own strategy of trying to degrade Russian oil revenue.

That strategy may make sense from Kyiv’s perspective in a long war of attrition, but it directly conflicts with the energy stability Trump is trying to deliver for the United States and the world. When a partner ignores or quickly walks away from a ceasefire the U.S. President announces, that partner is telling us the relationship is transactional and one-way. Today Zelensky openly mocks Trump. We should take the hint.

This is not an isolated incident.

For years, the pattern has been the same: massive American support, escalating demands, and limited progress toward an end to the fighting. The war is now well into its fifth year. Every winter brings more strikes on power plants and heating infrastructure. Every summer and fall brings more long-range drone and missile exchanges. American taxpayers have been asked to underwrite this indefinitely while Europe talks a good game and still relies heavily on U.S. systems and intelligence.

Let’s talk numbers, because numbers don’t lie. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, the United States has appropriated and committed enormous sums related to Ukraine and the region. Official oversight figures put total U.S. spending related to the war response in the range of roughly $180–195 billion when you include supplemental appropriations, replenishment of our own stocks, economic support, humanitarian aid, and associated costs. Security assistance alone—drawdowns from U.S. inventories, the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, and related financing—has exceeded $68 billion in committed defense articles and services through mid-2026, according to the Special Inspector General. Broader trackers from places like the Kiel Institute and others have put cumulative U.S. bilateral commitments in the $100–135+ billion range depending on exactly what is counted (military, financial, and humanitarian).

That’s not abstract. That’s money that could have gone to our own border, our own military readiness, infrastructure, debt reduction, or tax relief for American workers. Much of the equipment came out of U.S. stocks that then had to be replaced—sometimes at higher cost. Economic and budget support helped keep the Ukrainian government functioning, paying salaries and pensions while the war ground on. There has been no major new large-scale U.S. aid package since the big supplemental in April 2024. Under the current administration, the flow has slowed dramatically, and Europe has been forced to step up more. That’s the right direction, but it doesn’t erase what has already been spent or the open-ended commitment some still want to maintain.

And then there’s the corruption question—something that never fully goes away when you’re talking about large-scale American aid to Ukraine.

Start with our own side. In early 2024, the Pentagon’s Inspector General reported that the Defense Department had failed to properly track more than $1 billion in sensitive equipment sent to Ukraine—Javelin and Stinger missiles, night-vision devices, certain drones, and other items that by law require enhanced end-use monitoring. As of mid-2023, roughly 59 percent of the value of those high-risk items was still “delinquent” in the inventory systems. The report didn’t claim widespread theft, but it documented serious accountability gaps in a wartime environment. That’s American gear and American money with incomplete visibility.

On the Ukrainian side, the problems are more concrete. Classified government audits by Ukraine’s State Audit Service and the Defense Ministry’s own internal auditors—covering 2024 and 2025 and reported by The New York Times in September 2026—found that Ukraine lost about $1.2 billion in 2024 alone to fraud, waste, and mismanagement in defense procurement. Seven of the top ten military contractors kept winning new business even though they had open criminal investigations for fraud, had failed to deliver on earlier contracts, or had executives arrested or out on bail. One company was awarded a major mortar contract worth hundreds of millions while its director was already under investigation and out on bail; that same plant later supplied hundreds of thousands of defective mortar rounds. Auditors also flagged companies that never fulfilled a single prior contract yet received new ones, cases of rejecting lower bids and overpaying by roughly $126 million, heavy use of intermediaries who added markups, and disputed advance payments in the tens or hundreds of millions on deals that collapsed. These are Ukrainian government documents, not Western speculation.

Then there’s the energy sector. Ukraine’s own National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) has documented an alleged roughly $100 million kickback operation inside the state nuclear company Energoatom. Investigators say contractors were required to pay 10 to 15 percent off the top simply to get paid and stay on the supplier list—including on contracts for protective structures meant to shield nuclear facilities from Russian strikes. The alleged organizer is Timur Mindich, a longtime business partner of President Zelenskyy and co-owner of the Kvartal 95 production company that made Zelenskyy famous as an actor. The scheme involved wiretaps, charging documents, and a money-laundering operation; Mindich left the country before charges. The investigation has touched senior officials, led to searches and resignations (including around Zelenskyy’s former chief of staff), and produced charges against former energy and justice ministers and others. NABU is the independent anti-corruption body the United States helped create and train.

None of this is “ancient history.” These are recent audits, Inspector General findings, and active Ukrainian investigations. Corruption concerns in Ukrainian institutions have never fully gone away, and the combination of poor tracking on our end and documented waste and alleged schemes on theirs is a serious problem when American taxpayers are writing the checks.

Supporters of continued aid will say this is about defending democracy, deterring aggression, and protecting the post-Cold War order. Those are serious arguments. But after years of aid, the front lines have not produced a decisive Ukrainian victory. Russia has absorbed sanctions, adapted, and continues to press. Ukraine has suffered terrible losses in manpower and infrastructure. Zelenskyy’s government has postponed elections under martial law which means the U.S. is backing a wartime leadership indefinitely.

When Trump suggested it might be time for Ukraine to consider new leadership more focused on a deal, it was blunt—but it reflected the reality that the current approach is not producing an end to the fighting.Zelensky has no interest in peace.

The energy ceasefire episode crystallizes the problem. Trump tried to de-escalate one of the most economically damaging aspects of the war for American consumers. Ukraine’s response—pausing briefly, then resuming strikes while accusing Russia of non-compliance—shows that Kyiv prioritizes its military strategy over the diplomatic off-ramp the U.S. is offering. Both sides have an interest in hurting the other’s energy sector. But the United States does not have an unlimited interest in funding that cycle. Our primary obligation is to American citizens facing higher fuel costs and a national debt that has already ballooned.

Cutting off further aid and ending open-ended support for Zelenskyy’s government is not “abandoning Ukraine.” It is recognizing limits. Europe has the proximity, the economic interest, and the capacity to take the lead on its own continent. American military stockpiles and intelligence remain valuable, but they should not be an unlimited credit line.

Nor is this about “democracy”. Ukraine has held no elections and freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion are not honored in Ukraine where the largest church in the country is outlawed, priests and pastors jailed along with journalists while newspapers and any media that does not support Zelensky is outlawed.

A policy of endless blank checks has not ended the war; it has prolonged it. A realistic assessment—acknowledging that Ukraine cannot defeat Russia outright with current support levels, that both sides have violated de-escalation attempts, that U.S. taxpayers have already shouldered a historic burden, and that serious accountability and corruption problems persist—points toward winding down the aid and pushing for negotiations that reflect battlefield realities.

President Trump has been consistent that this is not America’s war to fight forever and that deals should put American interests first, including energy prices.

The recent energy ceasefire attempt, the diesel arrangement, and the continued strikes show the gap between announcements and reality on the ground. When a partner repeatedly puts its own maximalist goals ahead of the practical steps the U.S. proposes—and when documented waste, tracking failures, and major corruption investigations surround the use of American support—the responsible response is to stop writing the checks. American security, American energy costs, and American fiscal health come first.