Trump posts video slamming Netanyahu, US wars for Israel
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | January 8, 2025
President-elect Donald Trump shared a video featuring Columbia professor Jeffery Sachs sharply criticizing US Middle East policy and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanahu’s role in leading the US into wars.
In the video, Sachs says Netanyahu is “a deep, dark son of a bitch” who led the US into multiple follies in the Middle East and now wants America to fight a war with Iran on Israel’s behalf. “Netanyahu had, from 1995 onward, the theory that the only way we’re going to get rid of Hamas and Hezbollah is by toppling the governments that support them. That’s Iraq, Iran and Syria. The guy is nothing if not obsessive.” The professor continued, “He’s gotten us into endless wars and because of the power of all of this in U.S. politics, he’s gotten his way.”
In 2002, Netanyahu gave an address to Congress to help sell Americans on going to war in Iraq. “If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region,” the Israeli Prime Minister said. “And I think that people sitting right next door in Iran, young people, and many others, will say the time of such regimes, of such despots is gone.”
The Iraq War would result in hundreds of thousands of murdered Iraqi civilians, thousands of dead Americans, trillions of dollars spent, and a government in Baghdad more aligned with Tehran. Additionally, the power vacuum created by the fall of Saddam’s government led to the rise of al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Islamic State.
As of 2019, a majority of Americans believed the war in Iraq was not worth fighting and a mistake.
After the US disposed of Saddam, the Iraqi people elected a Shi’ite-led government that favored strong ties with Tehran. Washington and its Middle East allies then became concerned that there now existed a “Shi’ite Crescent” in the region stretching from Iran to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.
Professor Sachs explains that President Barack Obama then ordered the CIA to launch an operation that supported Sunni militant groups in Syria attempting to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad. At the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency warned that the CIA’s support for Sunni groups could result in the creation of an Islamic Caliphate.
Sach’s criticisms of US foreign policy and Israel’s influence in Washington’s politics have resulted in attacks from high-ranking Israeli officials. Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli said Sachs was in a group of “fringe Holocaust deniers, conspiracy theorists, and blood libel enthusiasts who oppose the State of Israel.”
In the video, a two-minute compilation of a longer interview posted by Wall Steet Apes, Sachs slams the US media for failing to cover the CIA’s support for the opposition to Assad, noting the New York Times only mentioned the operation, dubbed Timber Sycamore, three times.
Trump has labeled himself as the “best friend” of Israel and has promised to increase support for the Jewish State after he returns to the White House.
Germany: Green-led agency warns Facebook of potential sanctions after Zuckerberg says he will end censorship regime
Remix News | January 8, 2025
Germany and the European Union are in an uproar after Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said he was going to take efforts to end censorship on Facebook and Instagram, including the termination of Meta’s relationship with fact-checkers who Zuckerberg accused of political bias.
Given that much of the EU power runs on political censorship, Brussels and member states like Germany are worried they might lose control of the political narrative, especially when left-liberal leaders are falling from power across the Western world.
The Federal Network Agency in Germany, which reports to German Economic Minister Robert Habeck, is threatening that Facebook could more likely face sanctions if it does not continue its “fact checking” relationship with controversial organizations like Correctiv, known for its hit pieces on the Alternative for Germany (AfD).
The Green Federal Network Agency boss is threatening Facebook with sanctions if it does not resume working with “fact checkers” such as “Correctiv”. This has led to censorship on a large scale, as Zuckerberg admitted.
Klaus Müller, of the Greens and who runs the Federal Network Agency, wrote on X on Wednesday morning according to the Digital Service Act (DSA), “the cooperation of very large online platforms with fact-checking organizations is not mandatory, but their risk of sanctions is reduced if they do so in the EU.” EU election guidelines also note that the presence of fact checkers is considered “a risk-minimizing measure in elections” with regard to “systemic risks.”
“If a (Very Large Online Provider) VLOP does not work with fact checkers, it must prove that it is taking other, equally effective risk-minimizing measures,” he further wrote.
Zuckerberg admits that these fact-checkers have helped drive a regime of censorship on his platform. He notes that these organizations have exerted pressure to “censor more and more.”
However, German media reports that Facebook is still currently working with Correctiv. It is unclear when that relationship will end — if ever.
Zuckerberg says he now wants to switch to a community notes system like the one deployed by Elon Musk on X. Notably, he wants to lift restrictions on certain issues, such as immigration and gender issues, and adjust filters to allow free expression on the platform.
As Remix News reported, our own news site has come under attack from Facebook censors in the past, reducing our reach from millions of views a week to a few thousand a week as of now.
Telegram supported freedom of speech when it was less ‘safe’ – Durov
RT | January 8, 2025
It’s easy to support freedom of speech when one doesn’t have to face any risks for doing so, Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov wrote on Wednesday, in a post on his messenger platform. The entrepreneur was apparently commenting on recent announcements by Meta – the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Threads – which has announced some major policy changes.
On Tuesday, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that his company would ditch its controversial third-party fact-checking program in the US. He admitted that such services did more harm than good, as they “shut out people with different ideas.” He also said that Donald Trump’s victory in the November presidential elections was one of the developments that prompted the policy change.
Zuckerberg called the recent US elections a “tipping point” towards prioritizing freedom of speech, and vowed to reduce censorship.
“It’s easy to say you support something when you risk nothing,” Durov wrote in his Telegram post the next day, adding that some “platforms are announcing they’ll now have less censorship.” He did not cite Meta by name in his post, though.
Those making such changes only now would face a “real test of their newly discovered values” when “the political winds change again,” the Telegram CEO predicted, adding that his company’s values “don’t depend on US electoral cycles.”
“I’m proud that Telegram has supported freedom of speech, long before it became politically safe to do so,” Durov said.
His words came just a week after the Telegram CEO himself said that his platform was facing certain restrictions in the EU due to anti-Russia sanctions. At that time, Durov stated that Russians had more media freedom than Europeans did, given that all Western media outlets were “freely accessible” on Telegram in Russia while “certain Russian media has been restricted in the EU under DSA/sanctions laws.”
Durov also faced major legal challenges in the EU last year. The Russian entrepreneur, who is also a citizen of France, the UAE, and Saint Kitts and Nevis, was detained in France and faced 12 criminal charges, including complicity in distributing child pornography, drug dealing, and money laundering. French authorities claimed that Telegram’s supposedly lax moderation rules had allowed criminals to flourish on the platform.
The businessman was released on bail but barred from leaving France. In September 2024, he announced an update to Telegram’s Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, which would make it clear that that IP addresses and phone numbers of those who violate the messenger’s rules “can be disclosed to relevant authorities in response to valid legal requests.” In October of the same year, he also admitted that the platform had already been sharing such information with relevant authorities, as it had been possible to do so since 2018.
Keir Starmer’s Censorship Playbook
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | January 8, 2025
At a time when public trust already teeters on a knife’s edge, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has decided that what we really need is a lecture on “misinformation.” Yes, the same Starmer who spent years navigating political quagmires with the dexterity of a politician reading polling data, and someone accused of lying to the public in the manifesto that got him elected, now fancies himself the arbiter of “truth” and “decency.” And what better way to assert moral authority than by weaponizing one of Britain’s darkest scandals—the rape gang crises—and reframing criticism of government failures as the “poison of the far-Right”?
Criticism: The New Extremism
During his January 6 press conference, Starmer ditched accountability in favor of a moral crusade against critics. He accused them of peddling “lies,” “misinformation,” and—brace yourself—aligning with the “far-right.” “We’ve seen this playbook many times,” Starmer said, oozing conviction.
But the public has seen his playbook too.
If you express concern about how successive governments ignored victims, allowed systemic failures to fester, and dragged their feet on justice, you’re basically a neo-Nazi. Starmer’s rhetorical sleight-of-hand here is stunning—turning widespread outrage into something inherently sinister.
By lumping legitimate grievances in with the ravings of extremists, he effectively tars everyone with the same brush. Victims and their advocates? Extremists. Grassroots activists demanding reforms? Extremists. It’s a brilliant move if your goal is to shut down meaningful conversation while appearing noble.
Blaming Musk: A Modern-Day Scapegoat
But Starmer wasn’t done. Enter the obligatory bogeyman of modern discourse: Elon Musk. When the X owner criticized MP Jess Phillips for refusing to support a public inquiry into the grooming gang scandals, Starmer leaped at the opportunity to accuse him of endangering her safety. Musk, Starmer implied, had crossed some vague and undefinable “dangerous threshold” by calling out a politician’s inaction.
There’s no denying threats against MPs are a serious matter, especially in today’s climate, but let’s not pretend Musk was personally drafting hate mail. Criticism of public officials, even harsh criticism, isn’t equivalent to endorsing violence. Yet, Starmer’s play here is clear: frame dissent as inherently harmful and wrap it in the protective cloak of “safety.” It’s a chillingly effective tactic that sets the stage for conflating free speech with hate speech—a distinction that seems increasingly inconvenient for those in power.
The New Gatekeepers of “Decency”
Starmer’s framing of these issues points to a larger, more insidious trend: the slow, deliberate erosion of public discourse under the guise of safeguarding “truth” and “decency.” Dissenting voices are no longer just misguided or even wrong—they’re now dangerous, toxic, and unworthy of a platform.
What makes this particularly egregious is the context. The grooming gang scandals are a grotesque example of institutional failure. Victims were ignored for years as authorities feared accusations of racism, prioritizing optics over justice.
What Starmer presents as a defense of democracy is, in fact, a calculated effort to consolidate narrative control. If criticism can be dismissed as “far-Right poison,” then any dissenting voice—no matter how valid—can be silenced without debate.
Sliding Toward Silence
Starmer’s approach represents the classic slippery slope of censorship. First, the extremists are silenced (fair enough, many argue). Then, the vaguely problematic voices are muted. Finally, anyone who veers too far from the approved script is deemed an enemy of “truth.”
This isn’t only about online discourse or high-profile figures like Musk. It’s about ordinary people—victims, activists, and concerned citizens—who now risk being labeled as agitators simply for demanding accountability.
The Real Threat: Manufactured Consensus
Starmer’s insistence on equating criticism with extremism creates a vacuum where only the government’s narrative is allowed to thrive. And when the only voices left are the ones singing praises of the status quo, we’re no longer talking about democracy; we’re talking about a PR campaign with parliamentary decorum.
James Cleverly, former Home Secretary, didn’t mince words when he weighed in on the fiasco, summing up what many in Britain are quietly, or not-so-quietly, thinking. “Accusing those who disagree with him, or who seek legitimate answers about repeated failures of child protection, as ‘far-Right’ is deeply insulting and counterproductive,” Cleverly said, in a rare moment of plain speaking from a political figure.
As Cleverly pointed out, branding dissent as extremism doesn’t bridge divisions; it widens them, pouring accelerant on an already polarized public square.
Maggie Oliver, the whistleblower who exposed the Rochdale scandal, spoke for many when she called Starmer’s remarks “insulting in the extreme.” Oliver, who resigned from Greater Manchester Police in protest over their inaction, knows better than most how hard it is to get the system to listen. To see campaigners lumped in with extremists, she argued, “sets a terrifying precedent.”
The “Misinformation” Blueprint: Starmer’s New Censorship Arsenal
If Prime Minister Starmer’s handling of criticism over the UK’s rape gang scandal feels less like leadership and more like a prelude to mass censorship, that’s because it likely is. With the newly minted Online Safety Act and provisions under the National Security Act 2023, Starmer’s buzzword-heavy rhetoric about “misinformation” starts looking less like clumsy damage control and more like the calculated groundwork for a chilling clampdown on dissent.
For years, “misinformation” has been a convenient scapegoat for governments worldwide to suppress inconvenient truths. Now, in the UK, the term threatens to become a legal cudgel, ready to pummel any narrative that strays too far from the government-approved script.
Weaponizing the Online Safety Act
Starmer doesn’t need to introduce sweeping new legislation to suppress dissent—his government already has a powerful set of tools at its disposal. The Online Safety Act, sold to the public as a safeguard against harm, contains provisions that are broad enough to suppress not only malicious lies but also legitimate criticism under the guise of protecting the public. Here’s how it could play out:
1. Section 179: False Communications Offense
This is where Starmer’s “misinformation” rhetoric gets teeth. Section 179 criminalizes knowingly false communications intended to cause “non-trivial psychological or physical harm.” The wording here is as vague as it is dangerous. What qualifies as “non-trivial psychological harm”? If the government decides that criticisms of its handling of the grooming gang scandal cause emotional distress to MPs—or, conveniently, to the public—it could label them as harmful misinformation.
Imagine this: a social media user accuses Starmer’s government of ignoring systemic abuse in grooming gang cases. Even if the criticism is grounded in fact, the government could argue that the way it’s framed constitutes psychological harm. Once flagged, tech platforms—obligated under the Online Safety Act to prevent such offenses—could preemptively remove posts or ban users entirely.
The chilling effect is immediate. Knowing the penalties—up to 51 weeks in prison and unlimited fines—citizens may think twice before questioning the government on sensitive issues. And that’s the goal: silence through fear.
2. Schedule 7, Section 37: Foreign Interference
The National Security Act 2023 adds another weapon to Starmer’s arsenal: the foreign interference clause. This provision criminalizes any “misrepresentation” on behalf of a foreign power, even if the information shared is true. While the law ostensibly targets foreign espionage, its scope is alarmingly wide.
Starmer could use this to neutralize high-profile international critics like Elon Musk. If Musk’s tweets about UK safeguarding policies are deemed to influence British political discourse, Starmer’s government could accuse him of “foreign interference.” The penalties? Up to 14 years in prison for violators and mandatory platform censorship of related content.
Any UK citizen amplifying criticism that the government ties to a foreign agenda—whether real or imagined—could face scrutiny under this Orwellian provision.
3. Section 152: Advisory Committee on Disinformation and Misinformation
Perhaps the most insidious element of the Online Safety Act is the creation of a disinformation advisory committee under Ofcom. This unelected body will have the power to define what counts as “misinformation,” aligning platforms’ moderation policies with government narratives.
Given Starmer’s framing of dissent as extremist “poison,” it’s easy to imagine how this committee could become a government lapdog. If dissenting views about rape gang scandals—or any politically sensitive issue—are labeled misinformation, platforms would have little choice but to silence those voices.
4. Section 165: Media Literacy
Ofcom’s mandate to promote media literacy sounds harmless enough, but in practice, it’s a PR goldmine for governments looking to control narratives. Imagine a state-backed campaign equating criticism of the grooming gang scandal to conspiracy theories, painting dissenters as dangerous purveyors of hate. This would prime the public to distrust any view that deviates from the official line, effectively preempting free debate.
Starmer’s Record: A Preview of What’s to Come
Starmer’s embrace of censorship isn’t theoretical—it’s historical. When riots broke out in the summer of 2023, his government oversaw the arrest of individuals for inflammatory social media posts. While some cases involved genuine incitement, others targeted people simply expressing anger at systemic failures or “misinformation.” The precedent was clear: if your post made the government uncomfortable, you were a target.
Fast forward to today, and Starmer’s buzzword-laden rhetoric—“misinformation,” “extremism,” “poison”—looks suspiciously like a blueprint for round two. His invocation of these terms isn’t casual; it’s calculated. Each one is a trigger for the machinery of censorship already baked into British law.
EU funding for Israeli tech raises fresh concerns about complicity in genocide
By Melike Pala | MEMO | January 8, 2025
Hind Rajab Foundation chief says his resolve ‘unchanged’ after Israeli minister’s death threat

Chairperson of pro-Palestine advocacy organization Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF), Dyab Abou Jahjah (Photo via social media)
Press TV – January 8, 2025
The chairperson of pro-Palestine advocacy organization Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF) has stated that his resolve remains unchanged after an Israeli minister made a death threat against him after the group’s complaints in courts around the world against Israeli soldiers for committing war crimes in Gaza.
“When I decided to pursue justice against Israeli war criminals, I understood the consequences. As a father, husband, and teacher, this decision was not an easy one. My responsibilities to my family and my students weigh heavily on me. In recent days, following Israeli threats, I’ve taken time to reflect deeply once more. My resolve remains unchanged,” Dyab Abou Jahjah wrote in a post published on his X account on Tuesday.
He added, “After witnessing this genocide, there is no turning back. In the face of such grave injustice, the perpetrators must be held accountable. Justice is the only path forward—not revenge, not violence, but justice through the courts of law. International and national legal frameworks must prevail. This is not only for the victims, but for all of us and for future generations.”
The human rights activist pointed out that the genocide or the killing of children must not become normalized, stressing that “This pursuit of accountability and justice must and will continue, come what may.”
Abou Jahjah’s comments came after Israeli minister of diaspora affairs and combating antisemitism, Amichai Chikli, made a death threat against him.
“Hello to our human rights activist. Watch your pager,” Chikli wrote on X in an address addressed to the activist.
The Israeli minister was making reference to the Tel Aviv regime’s simultaneous explosions of hundreds of pagers and communication devices belonging to the Lebanese resistance group Hezbollah across Lebanon last September.
The series of explosions left dozens of people killed and injured at least 2,750 others wounded, according to security services and the Lebanese health ministry.
The Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF) has filed several complaints in various countries against Israeli forces who participated in the genocidal campaign in Gaza. It has also lodged a complaint with the International Criminal Court (ICC) against 1,000 Israeli soldiers.
The foundation is named after Hind Rajab, a symbol of Gaza’s suffering.
On January 29 last year, Hind had been traveling in a car with her uncle, his wife and their three children, fleeing fighting in the neighborhood of Tel Al-Hawa in Gaza City, when they came under Israeli fire.
Trapped in the bullet-ridden vehicle and surrounded by her dead relatives, Hind begged for help from the Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS).
Two first responders, Yousef Zeino and Ahmed al-Madhoun, were deployed in a bid to save Hind, but the Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) soon lost contact with them, along with the little girl.
On February 10, the bodies of Hind and her relatives were found lying in the car. Just meters away, a burned-out ambulance was found with the remains of the two paramedics who tried to save the girl.
Israel launched the genocidal war on Gaza on October 7, 2023. The war has so far killed at least 45,885 Palestinians, mostly women and children, and injured 109,196 others.
After Jordan, Carrefour halts operations in Oman over BDS campaign
Al Mayadeen | January 8, 2025
French multinational retail giant Carrefour has announced the suspension of its operations in Oman, just two months after closing all its branches in Jordan in response to a global anti-“Israel” campaign denouncing the occupation entity’s decades-long crimes against Palestinians.
Carrefour, one of the largest supermarket chains worldwide, confirmed its decision through a statement on its official Instagram account on Tuesday: “Effective from January 7, 2025, Carrefour operations will be discontinued in the Sultanate of Oman.”
This announcement follows a similar decision on November 5, 2024, when the company declared a complete halt to its operations in Jordan.
The closures were attributed to significant financial losses and reputational damage resulting from a widespread and creative boycott campaign. Majid Al Futtaim, which holds the exclusive rights to operate Carrefour in the West Asia region and the Arab world, publicized the decision.
The campaign, led by the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) as part of the global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, began in December 2022 in response to the French global retail group’s complicity in Israeli crimes against Palestinians.
The #BoycottCarrefour campaign has gained momentum over the past two years, with protests staged outside Carrefour outlets globally, despite efforts in some countries to suppress such activism.
Calls for a boycott intensified further following the outset of “Israel’s” war on Gaza, with critics accusing Carrefour branches of supporting war crimes by providing gift packages to Israeli soldiers and running donation campaigns to support soldiers involved in the war on the Palestinian enclave.
Additionally, Carrefour has reportedly signed agreements with Israeli technology firms and banks implicated in human rights violations and war crimes against Palestinians.
Futtaim Group’s semi-annual report for 2024 revealed a 47% decline in retail sector profits, citing reduced consumer confidence due to the “geopolitical conflict in the region.”
The report highlighted the impact of the extensive boycott campaign, which has gained traction across the region, from Jordan to Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates.
Israel blocks UN probe into alleged sexual violence during 7 October attack
MEMO | January 8, 2025
Israel has denied the United Nations permission to investigate sexual violence allegedly committed by Hamas during the 7 October cross-border infiltration, due to concerns that it could also involve investigating sexual violence against Palestinians in Israeli detention facilities.
Pramila Patten, the UN’s Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, sought authorisation to investigate the allegations against Hamas. However, she insisted that access to Israeli detention centres to probe allegations against Israeli soldiers was a necessary condition.
According to Haaertz, Israel rejected this request. Patten has called on Israel to sign a framework agreement with the UN, committing to measures to combat sexual violence in conflicts.
Patten’s office has confirmed plans to explore a future mission to the region, following invitations from both the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government. “The Office is exploring a future mission to the region after receiving an invitation from the Palestinian Authority regarding reports of conflict-related sexual violence against Palestinians as well as outreach by the Government of Israel for a follow-up visit on the 7 October attacks and their aftermath.”
However, Patten’s office has warned that Israel’s refusal to allow UN investigations into alleged crimes attributed to it could have negative repercussions. Representatives from Israel’s Women’s Network, who met with Patten’s team in New York last month, reported being warned that this stance could lead to Israel being added to the UN’s blacklist of entities responsible for sexual violence in conflicts, while Hamas might remain off the list.
This comes after Israeli authorities admitted that no allegations of rape or sexual assault have been filed from the 7 October cross-border infiltration by Palestinian resistance factions, despite extensive investigations.
Moran Gaz, a former lead prosecutor in Israel’s Southern District Prosecutor’s Office and member of Team 7.10, disclosed the findings in an interview with Ynet.
In March 2023, United Nations experts had already debunked similar allegations, concluding they were either unverified or proven false. Similarly, other gruesome claims, such as babies being beheaded or burned in ovens, were widely discredited but continued to circulate in political rhetoric.
Pro-independence leader rebuffs Trump’s plan to buy Greenland

Greenland’s natural resources minister Mute Egede in his office in Nuuk, Greenland, on May 4, 2017. © Julia Waeschenbach / Getty Images
RT | January 8, 2025
Greenland’s pro-independence leader has rejected US President-elect Donald Trump’s proposal to buy the Arctic self-governing island from Denmark.
Trump has revived his old idea of acquiring the mineral-rich territory as he is preparing to assume the presidency on January 20. “Greenland is an incredible place, and the people will benefit tremendously if, and when, it becomes part of our nation,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform recently, vowing to “protect it, and cherish it, from a very vicious outside world.”
Greenland’s prime minister, Mute Bourup Egede, who has been campaigning for the island’s independence, reiterated that Greenland should not belong to any foreign power.
“Let me repeat – Greenland belongs to the people of Greenland. Our future and fight for independence is our business,” Egede wrote on Facebook on Tuesday.
“While others, including Danes and Americans, are entitled to their opinions, we should not be caught up in the hysteria and external pressures distract us from our path. The future is ours and ours to shape,” he added. Egede reaffirmed that his government was working towards Greenland’s eventual break with Denmark.
The former Danish colony of around 57,000 people has been a self-governing territory since 1979. In 2009, Greenland was granted the right to declare independence through a referendum.
Trump first floated the idea of purchasing Greenland in 2019, when it was rejected by the local government and officials in Copenhagen. The president-elect’s son, Donald Trump Jr., made an unannounced trip to the island on Tuesday. “Greenland loves America and Trump!!! Incredible people with an equally awesome reception,” he wrote on X.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has said that she welcomes US investment in Greenland, but stopped short of endorsing Trump’s renewed interest in the island. “The starting point of the government is very clear: the future of Greenland should be decided in Greenland. Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders,” she told TV 2.
“The United States is Denmark’s most important ally. Today’s discussion does not change that,” the prime minister added.
Trump has floated other bold foreign policy ideas, such as transforming Canada into America’s “51st state” and reclaiming US control over the Panama Channel. The leaders of Canada and Panama have rejected these proposals.
Biden to Rush Final ‘Substantial’ Weapons Transfer to Ukraine
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | January 7, 2025
Before President Joe Biden exits the White House later this month, he is planning a massive final aid package for Ukraine. The Pentagon will attempt to rush the weapons to Kiev before President-elect Donald Trump takes office.
Two defense officials said the new package would be announced on Thursday during a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group at an American military base in Germany, the Associated Press reported. The sources added that the weapons will come directly from US military stockpiles, and will be fast-tracked to Ukraine before Trump’s second term begins in less than two weeks.
The rush to provide Kiev with a “substantial” arms shipment before Trump returns to power appears aimed at undermining the president-elect’s stated goal of bringing the war in Ukraine to an end.
Since the American people voted for Trump to be the next president, the current administration has significantly escalated support for Kiev, even allowing Ukrainian forces to use long-range American missiles against targets inside Russia. Biden has also signed off on billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine since the war kicked off in early 2022.
The sources did not tell the AP how large the final package would be, though there is about $4 billion in congressionally authorized funding for Ukraine. The officials indicated that the Trump administration will have “more than a couple billion” in funding to send weapons to Ukraine.
While Trump pledged to bring the war to a close on the campaign trail, some incoming officials have stated that he intends to continue the arms shipments once he returns to power.
Since the start of the war, Washington has approved over $180 billion in aid to Ukraine; however, Kiev insists it has received only a fraction of that sum.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky elaborated during a recent podcast interview with Lex Friedman, saying “If we take, for example, money from the United States of America. During all this time of the war, around $177 billion have been voted for or decided upon, $177 billion.” He continued, “Let’s be honest. We have not received half of this money.”
The White House has announced at least $60 billion in military aid along with more than $100 billion in other forms of assistance, while America’s NATO allies have committed an additional $60 billion-plus in military support for the Ukrainian war effort.
