In today’s global landscape, where information is disseminated rapidly and sensationalism can overshadow factual reporting, it becomes increasingly important to separate truth from speculation. Recently, a provocative claim surfaced during a segment of The Tucker Carlson Show, where Col. Daniel Davis remarked on the purported sale of American weapons by the Ukrainian military to Mexican drug cartels. This assertion, amidst the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, has stirred significant concern, eliciting questions about the integrity of U.S. military aid and its potential ramifications on both international relations and domestic security. In this blog post, we will investigate these claims, providing a thorough fact-check to unpack the intricacies of this narrative. With a careful analysis of the evidence, we aim to shed light on the realities at play and clarify the implications for American policy makers and the citizens they serve. Join us as we dissect the facts and challenge the myths surrounding this controversial topic.

Fact Check Analysis

Claim

The US military has made itself substantially less effective than it used to be.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: The US Military Has Made Itself Substantially Less Effective Than It Used To Be

To assess the validity of the claim that the US military has become substantially less effective than it used to be, we need to examine recent reports and analyses on military readiness, performance metrics, and strategic challenges.

### Military Readiness and Performance Metrics

1. **Military Readiness Challenges**: The Department of Defense (DoD) faces significant challenges in maintaining military readiness. These include recruiting shortfalls, shortages of civilian personnel and healthcare workers, aging equipment, and inadequate maintenance[1]. Nearly two decades of conflict have degraded US military readiness, necessitating urgent changes to adapt to growing threats from major powers like China and Russia[2].

2. **Historical Performance Metrics**: The Heritage Foundation's Index of U.S. Military Strength indicates that the US military is weaker today than at any point over the past decade, highlighting shortfalls in capacity and capability[5]. This suggests a decline in effectiveness compared to previous years.

### Strategic Challenges and Budgetary Constraints

1. **Strategic Challenges**: The DoD must balance current readiness with preparing for future threats, while also addressing challenges posed by near-peer competitors like China and Russia[1]. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has further strained resources and highlighted limitations in equipment and munitions inventories[4].

2. **Budgetary Constraints**: The proposed 2025 DoD budget is slightly decreased from previous projections, which could impact modernization efforts and readiness activities[3]. Continuing resolutions have resulted in insufficient funds for recruiting bonuses, delays in modernizing weapon systems, and postponed readiness activities[1].

### Conclusion

The claim that the US military has made itself substantially less effective than it used to be is supported by several factors:

– **Decline in Military Readiness**: The DoD faces significant challenges in maintaining readiness due to recruiting shortfalls, equipment issues, and budget constraints[1][2].
– **Performance Metrics**: Historical performance metrics indicate a decline in military strength and effectiveness over the past decade[5].
– **Strategic and Budgetary Challenges**: The military faces strategic challenges from near-peer competitors and budget constraints that impact modernization and readiness[1][3][4].

Overall, while the US military remains a powerful force, its effectiveness has been compromised by various challenges and constraints. Therefore, the claim holds validity based on current assessments and trends.

Citations

Claim

Ukraine's military is reportedly selling a significant percentage, up to half, of the arms received from the U.S.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: Ukraine's Military Selling a Significant Percentage of U.S. Arms

The claim that Ukraine's military is selling a significant percentage, up to half, of the arms received from the U.S. to entities like Mexican cartels has been widely discussed, particularly by media figures such as Tucker Carlson[1]. However, this assertion lacks concrete evidence and is contradicted by various reports and statements from officials.

### Evidence Against the Claim

1. **Lack of Evidence**: Despite Carlson's claims, no substantial evidence has been provided to support the notion that up to half of U.S. weapons are being sold to Mexican cartels[1]. The absence of credible sources or documentation undermines the validity of such assertions.

2. **Official Oversight**: The U.S. has implemented strict oversight mechanisms to track military aid to Ukraine. Keith Kellogg, a special envoy for Ukraine-Russia, noted that U.S. audits and inspector generals on the ground ensure accountability for the funds and weapons provided[1]. This suggests a robust system to prevent large-scale diversion of arms.

3. **Types of Weapons Delivered**: The majority of U.S. deliveries to Ukraine include heavy weapons like Bradley IFVs and HIMARS missiles, which are not typically used by Mexican cartels[1]. The logistics of transporting such heavy equipment to Mexico would also be highly impractical.

4. **Arms Trafficking in Ukraine**: While there are instances of illegal arms sales in Ukraine, these are mostly related to captured Russian weapons rather than U.S.-supplied arms[2]. The Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime (GI-TOC) reports that arms trafficking in Ukraine is largely opportunistic and not organized on a large scale[2].

5. **Historical Context**: Ukraine has historically had a significant black market for arms, but recent concerns about U.S. weapons diversion are not supported by evidence of large-scale trafficking to countries like Mexico[3].

### Conclusion

Based on the available information, the claim that Ukraine's military is selling up to half of the U.S. arms to Mexican cartels lacks substantial evidence and is contradicted by official statements and reports. While there are concerns about arms diversion and black markets in Ukraine, these do not support the specific assertion made by Carlson. The oversight mechanisms in place and the nature of the weapons delivered suggest that large-scale diversion to cartels is unlikely.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

– **Independent Audits**: Conducting independent audits and investigations by reputable organizations could help clarify the extent of any arms diversion.
– **Intelligence Reports**: Access to classified intelligence reports might provide more insight into potential arms trafficking, though such information is typically not publicly available.
– **Monitoring Programs**: Expanding monitoring programs like the GI-TOC's Arms Monitoring Project could offer more detailed data on arms flows and help address concerns about weapons diversion.

Citations

Claim

70,000 Ukrainians have died.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "70,000 Ukrainians Have Died"

To assess the validity of the claim that "70,000 Ukrainians have died" in the conflict, we need to examine available data on Ukrainian casualties. The claim does not specify whether it refers to military personnel or civilians, so we will consider both categories.

### Military Casualties

– **Ukrainian Military Casualties**: Estimates of Ukrainian military casualties vary. A confidential Ukrainian estimate reported by *The Wall Street Journal* suggests approximately 80,000 soldiers have been killed, with an additional 400,000 wounded, since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion[2]. Another U.S. estimate reported by *The New York Times* indicates more than 57,500 soldiers killed and approximately 250,000 wounded[2]. As of early February 2025, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy updated the military's casualty toll to 45,100 killed and 390,000 wounded[3].

### Civilian Casualties

– **Ukrainian Civilian Casualties**: The United Nations reported that as of December 31, 2024, at least 12,456 Ukrainian civilians had been killed and 28,382 wounded[3]. This figure does not include unconfirmed or undocumented cases, which could be higher.

### Conclusion

The claim of "70,000 Ukrainians have died" is not supported by current estimates of either military or civilian casualties. While the total number of military and civilian casualties combined is significant, it does not align with the specific figure of 70,000 deaths. The closest estimate to this figure would be the total number of military deaths and wounded combined, but even then, the reported figures are higher than 70,000 when considering both killed and wounded.

### Evidence Summary

– **Military Deaths**: The highest reported estimate of Ukrainian military deaths is around 80,000[2].
– **Civilian Deaths**: At least 12,456 Ukrainian civilians have been confirmed killed[3].
– **Total Casualties**: Combining military and civilian figures, the total number of deaths and injuries far exceeds 70,000, but the specific claim of 70,000 deaths is not directly supported by available data.

In conclusion, while the conflict in Ukraine has resulted in significant casualties, the claim of exactly 70,000 Ukrainian deaths is not validated by current reports or estimates.

Citations

Claim

A million people have fled Ukraine.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: A Million People Have Fled Ukraine

The claim that "a million people have fled Ukraine" is significantly underreported compared to the actual numbers documented by reliable sources. According to recent data from the United Nations, nearly 8 million people have fled Ukraine to neighboring countries since the beginning of Russia's invasion, while another 5.3 million are internally displaced[2]. This totals approximately 13.3 million people affected by displacement due to the conflict.

### Evidence and Data

1. **UN Reports**: The UN's emergency relief coordinator, Martin Griffiths, stated that almost 8 million people have fled Ukraine to neighboring countries, and an additional 5.3 million are internally displaced[2]. This indicates a much larger displacement than the claim suggests.

2. **Global Displacement Figures**: Russia's invasion of Ukraine has resulted in one of the largest and fastest displacements in recent decades, with a total of about 14 million Ukrainians displaced from their homes[3].

3. **Historical Context**: The conflict in Ukraine began with Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, followed by a full-scale invasion in February 2022. This has led to significant geopolitical tensions and humanitarian crises[2].

### Conclusion

Based on the evidence from reliable sources, the claim that "a million people have fled Ukraine" is inaccurate. The actual number of people who have fled or been displaced is significantly higher, with nearly 8 million refugees and 5.3 million internally displaced individuals[2]. Therefore, the claim is not supported by current data and should be corrected to reflect the severity of the displacement crisis in Ukraine.

Citations

Claim

The US government is sponsoring terror attacks inside Russia.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the U.S. government is sponsoring terror attacks inside Russia lacks credible evidence from reliable sources. Here's a detailed evaluation based on available information:

## Evaluation of the Claim

1. **Lack of Government Documents**: There are no publicly available government documents or official statements from the U.S. government that support the claim of sponsoring terror attacks inside Russia. Typically, such allegations would be investigated and documented by government agencies or international organizations if they had any basis in fact.

2. **Reputable News Sources**: Major news outlets and fact-checking organizations have not reported any credible evidence supporting this claim. Reputable sources often rely on verifiable information and would likely cover such significant allegations if they existed.

3. **International Context**: The international community, including organizations like the United Nations and the European Union, have not made any statements or taken actions that would suggest the U.S. is involved in sponsoring terror attacks in Russia.

4. **Legal and Diplomatic Implications**: If the U.S. were involved in such activities, it would have severe legal and diplomatic repercussions. The U.S. is a signatory to numerous international treaties and agreements that prohibit state-sponsored terrorism. Engaging in such activities would lead to significant international condemnation and legal action.

5. **Existing Tensions and Conflicts**: While there are tensions between the U.S. and Russia, particularly over issues like Ukraine, these tensions are primarily addressed through diplomatic channels and economic sanctions rather than alleged sponsorship of terrorism.

## Relevant Information and Context

– **U.S. Designation of State Sponsors of Terrorism**: The U.S. maintains a list of state sponsors of terrorism, which currently includes countries like Iran, Syria, and North Korea. This designation is based on evidence of a country's support for terrorism and has significant legal and economic implications[1][5].

– **Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA)**: This act aims to hold foreign governments accountable for supporting terrorism, particularly if they aid terrorist organizations that attack U.S. soil. However, it does not imply U.S. involvement in sponsoring terrorism abroad[2].

– **Terrorism Financing Risks**: The U.S. is actively engaged in combating terrorist financing and has designated various groups and individuals as terrorist entities. This includes efforts to prevent the flow of funds to terrorist organizations, not to sponsor them[3].

## Conclusion

Based on the available evidence and the lack of credible sources supporting the claim, it appears that the allegation of the U.S. government sponsoring terror attacks inside Russia is unfounded. Such a significant claim would require substantial evidence from reliable sources, which is currently absent.

Citations

Claim

Military recruitment goals are not being met.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that military recruitment goals are not being met is not accurate based on recent data and reports. Specifically, the U.S. Army has seen a significant turnaround in its recruitment efforts. Here's a detailed evaluation of the claim using reliable sources:

## Evidence Against the Claim

1. **Army Recruitment Success**: In the fiscal year that ended September 30, 2024, the Army met its recruiting goal of 55,000 soldiers and began rebuilding its delayed entry pool[1]. For fiscal year 2025, the Army aims to recruit 61,000 soldiers, marking an increase from previous years[3][4].

2. **Future Soldier Prep Course Impact**: The Army's Future Soldier Prep Course, launched in August 2022, has been instrumental in helping recruits meet military standards. This program contributed significantly to the Army's recruitment success, with about 24% of recruits in FY24 coming from the course[1][3].

3. **Diversity in Recruitment**: Despite concerns about "wokeness," the Army has seen an increase in minority enlistments, including the highest number of Hispanic recruits in 2024 and a 6% increase in Black recruiting[1].

4. **Recruitment Trends**: Recruiting numbers have been improving steadily since mid-2024, well before the recent political changes[4][5]. This trend suggests that factors other than political leadership are driving recruitment success.

## Conclusion

Based on recent reports and official statements, the claim that military recruitment goals are not being met is incorrect for the U.S. Army. The Army has not only met its recruitment goals for FY24 but is also on track to exceed them in FY25. The success can be attributed to innovative programs like the Future Soldier Prep Course and strategic changes in recruitment strategies[1][3][4]. However, other branches of the military may still face challenges, and ongoing political debates about diversity initiatives could impact future recruitment efforts[2].

Citations

Claim

Trump gets elected on the promise of no more wars that are draining the treasury and getting Americans killed, particularly the war in Ukraine.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Trump's Promise on Wars and Ukraine

The claim suggests that Donald Trump was elected on the promise of ending wars that drain the U.S. treasury and result in American casualties, particularly focusing on the war in Ukraine. To evaluate this claim, we need to examine Trump's statements and policies regarding military engagements and the Ukraine conflict.

### Trump's Promises on Ending Wars

During his presidential campaigns, Trump has consistently emphasized a desire to reduce U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts, often framing this as a way to protect American interests and lives. However, specific promises about ending the war in Ukraine have been more recent and are tied to his claims of having a good relationship with both Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin[1][3].

### Trump's Stance on the Ukraine War

Trump has stated that he could end the war in Ukraine quickly, suggesting that he would do so by negotiating directly with Putin and Zelenskyy. He has claimed that his good relationships with these leaders would facilitate a swift resolution[1][4]. However, critics argue that his approach might involve concessions to Russia, potentially at Ukraine's expense[5].

### Concerns and Criticisms

Critics point out that Trump's strategy might lead to Ukraine making territorial concessions to Russia, which could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty[5]. Additionally, Trump's past criticisms of U.S. aid to Ukraine have raised concerns about his commitment to supporting Ukraine's defense[4][5].

### Historical Context and Geopolitical Implications

The annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine are deeply intertwined with geopolitical tensions between Russia and the West. Trump's stance on recognizing Russian territorial gains could have significant implications for international relations and the balance of power in Europe[3].

### Conclusion

While Trump has indeed promised to end the war in Ukraine quickly if elected, the specifics of how he plans to achieve this are controversial and subject to interpretation. His approach may involve direct negotiations with Putin, potentially leading to concessions that could impact Ukraine's sovereignty. The claim that Trump was elected on a promise to end wars draining the treasury and causing American casualties is partially supported by his general stance on reducing U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts. However, the specific focus on Ukraine and the methods he might use to resolve the conflict are more complex and contentious.

### Evidence and References

– **Trump's Promises**: Trump has stated he would end the war in Ukraine quickly, leveraging his relationships with Putin and Zelenskyy[1][4].
– **Criticisms and Concerns**: Critics fear his approach might involve concessions to Russia, undermining Ukraine's sovereignty[5].
– **Geopolitical Context**: The conflict in Ukraine is deeply tied to broader geopolitical tensions between Russia and the West[3].

Citations

Claim

Angela Merkel and François Hollande admitted that the Minsk agreements were never supposed to be implemented.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Angela Merkel and François Hollande Admitted the Minsk Agreements Were Never Supposed to Be Implemented

To evaluate the claim that Angela Merkel and François Hollande admitted the Minsk agreements were never intended to be implemented, we need to examine their public statements and interviews regarding these agreements.

### Angela Merkel's Statements

Angela Merkel has stated that the Minsk agreements were an attempt to give Ukraine time to strengthen itself. In an interview with the German weekly *Die Zeit*, Merkel noted that the agreements were used to provide Ukraine with the opportunity to become stronger, as seen today[3][5]. This does not necessarily imply that the agreements were never meant to be implemented but rather that they served as a means to buy time for Ukraine.

### François Hollande's Statements

François Hollande confirmed Merkel's remarks, stating that the Minsk agreements allowed Ukraine to gain time and build up its military posture[5]. However, there is no clear indication from Hollande's statements that the agreements were never intended to be implemented. Instead, Hollande acknowledged the agreements provided a framework for dialogue and allowed Ukraine to strengthen its military[5].

### Fact-Checking Conclusion

The claim that Merkel and Hollande admitted the Minsk agreements were never supposed to be implemented is misleading. While they acknowledged that the agreements provided Ukraine with time to strengthen itself, there is no evidence to suggest they were never intended to be implemented in the first place[2][4]. The narrative that these leaders admitted to using the agreements as a ruse to trick Russia has been debunked as disinformation[2].

### Evidence and Citations

– **Merkel's Statements**: Merkel described the Minsk agreements as an attempt to give Ukraine time to become stronger, which does not necessarily imply a lack of intention to implement them[3][5].
– **Hollande's Statements**: Hollande confirmed Merkel's view, emphasizing the agreements allowed Ukraine to build up its military, but did not indicate they were never meant to be implemented[5].
– **Debunking Disinformation**: The narrative that Merkel, Hollande, and others admitted to using the Minsk agreements to trick Russia has been identified as false and lacking factual basis[2][4].

Citations

Claim

The Ukrainian side did not implement the most important provision of the Minsk Agreement regarding political autonomy for Russian-speaking individuals in the East.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Ukrainian Implementation of Minsk Agreement Provisions

The claim suggests that Ukraine did not implement the most important provision of the Minsk Agreement regarding political autonomy for Russian-speaking individuals in the East. To assess this claim, we need to examine the specific provisions of the Minsk Agreement related to autonomy and how they were addressed by Ukrainian authorities.

### Minsk Agreement Provisions on Autonomy

The Minsk II Agreement, signed in February 2015, included several key provisions related to autonomy and special status for the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk (Donbas). These provisions required Ukraine to:

1. **Constitutional Reform**: Implement decentralization through constitutional amendments, which would grant special status to the occupied regions, taking into account their "peculiarities" as agreed with the representatives of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People's Republic (LPR) [1][4].
2. **Special Status Law**: Adopt permanent legislation on special status for Donbas, including provisions for linguistic self-determination, local governance, and economic support [1][2].
3. **Local Elections**: Conduct local elections in the occupied territories under Ukrainian law and OSCE standards, but only after certain conditions were met, such as security guarantees [3][4].

### Ukrainian Implementation Efforts

Ukraine did attempt to implement some of these provisions:

1. **Special Status Law**: Ukraine's parliament passed a law on "special status" for Donbas on March 17, 2015, but it was criticized by both Russian and Ukrainian sides for not fully aligning with Minsk II's demands. The law required local elections to be held under Ukrainian jurisdiction, which Russia and the separatists opposed [2].
2. **Constitutional Reform**: Despite efforts to push through constitutional amendments, they were never fully adopted due to public protests and the need for a two-thirds majority in parliament, which was not achieved [3].

### Challenges and Obstacles

Several factors hindered the full implementation of these provisions:

1. **Russian Influence**: Russia's control over the separatist regions and its refusal to acknowledge its military presence in Ukraine created significant obstacles to implementing the agreement [5].
2. **Sequencing Disputes**: Ukraine and Russia disagreed on the sequencing of the agreement's implementation, with Ukraine insisting on regaining control over its border before holding local elections, while Russia demanded political concessions first [3][4].
3. **Public and Political Resistance**: Many Ukrainians viewed the Minsk Agreements as illegitimate due to the coercive circumstances under which they were signed, leading to resistance against implementing the special status provisions [3].

### Conclusion

The claim that Ukraine did not implement the most important provisions of the Minsk Agreement regarding political autonomy for Russian-speaking individuals in the East is partially accurate. While Ukraine did pass a special status law and attempted constitutional reforms, these efforts were incomplete and controversial. The full implementation was hindered by disagreements over sequencing, Russian influence, and domestic opposition. Therefore, the claim holds some truth but lacks context regarding the complexities and challenges faced by Ukraine in implementing these provisions.

## References

[1] [The Minsk Conundrum: Western Policy and Russia's War in Eastern Ukraine](https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/05/minsk-conundrum-western-policy-and-russias-war-eastern-ukraine-0/minsk-2-agreement)
[2] [Minsk Agreements](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements)
[3] [In the Shadow of the Minsk Agreements](https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/02/ukraine-russia-ceasefire-security-agreement)
[4] [Through the Ashes of the Minsk Agreements](https://epicenter.wcfia.harvard.edu/blog/through-ashes-minsk-agreements)
[5] [Lessons of the Minsk Deal: Breaking the Cycle of Russia's War in Ukraine](https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/lessons-minsk-deal-breaking-cycle-russias-war-ukraine)

Citations

Claim

Based on a plebiscite, approximately 95% of Crimeans voted to join Russia after the coup in Ukraine.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: Approximately 95% of Crimeans Voted to Join Russia

The claim that approximately 95% of Crimeans voted to join Russia after the coup in Ukraine is based on the official results of the referendum held on March 16, 2014. However, the legitimacy and accuracy of these results have been widely disputed by international observers and scholars.

### Official Results and Disputes

– **Official Figures**: The Crimean authorities reported that 96.7% to 97% of voters supported joining Russia, with a turnout of about 83%[1][4][5].
– **Disputes Over Legitimacy**: The referendum was conducted under Russian military control, without international observers, and offered no option for maintaining the status quo within Ukraine[1][4]. A report from the Russian president's Human Rights Council suggested that the actual turnout might have been as low as 30%, with only half of those voters supporting annexation[1][3][4].

### International Response

– **Non-Recognition**: The international community, including the UN General Assembly, has not recognized the referendum as legitimate. The UN adopted a resolution affirming Ukraine's territorial integrity and rejecting the annexation[4].
– **Sanctions and Diplomatic Fallout**: The U.S. and EU imposed sanctions on Russian officials following the referendum, reflecting their rejection of its legitimacy[5].

### Conclusion

While the official results of the Crimean referendum suggest a high level of support for joining Russia, the legitimacy and accuracy of these results are questionable due to the absence of international observers, the lack of a genuine choice for voters, and the presence of Russian military forces. Therefore, the claim that approximately 95% of Crimeans voted to join Russia should be viewed with skepticism in light of these factors.

### Recommendations for Future Analysis

1. **Consider Multiple Sources**: When evaluating the legitimacy of the referendum, consider both official results and critiques from international bodies and independent observers.
2. **Contextualize the Event**: Understand the geopolitical context, including the role of Russian military forces and the political climate in Ukraine at the time.
3. **Evaluate International Responses**: Recognize the widespread international rejection of the referendum's legitimacy and its implications for global relations.

By taking these steps, a more nuanced understanding of the events surrounding Crimea's annexation can be developed.

Citations

Claim

By March 2021, Ukrainian President Zelensky signed a law stating Ukraine would seek to take back all temporarily occupied areas, including Crimea, potentially by force.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Ukrainian President Zelensky's Strategy for Reclaiming Occupied Territories

The claim suggests that by March 2021, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky signed a law stating Ukraine would seek to take back all temporarily occupied areas, including Crimea, potentially by force. To evaluate this claim, we need to examine relevant legislative records and statements from President Zelensky.

### Evidence and Analysis

1. **Legislative Records and Statements**:
– On **March 24, 2021**, President Zelensky approved the "Strategy for the de-occupation and reintegration of the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol" [3]. This strategy outlines a comprehensive approach to restore Ukraine's territorial integrity through diplomatic, military, economic, informational, humanitarian, and other measures. While it does not explicitly state the use of force, it emphasizes the importance of international negotiations and cooperation to achieve de-occupation.

2. **Military Security Strategy**:
– Around the same time, Zelensky enacted the National Security and Defence Council's decision on Ukraine's military security strategy. This strategy focuses on protecting the country from external threats through deterrence, internal stability, and cooperation with the EU and NATO. It describes Russia as a "military adversary" but does not specify the use of force to reclaim occupied territories [1].

3. **Context of the Conflict**:
– The ongoing conflict in Ukraine, including the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ongoing war in Donbas, has led to a complex geopolitical situation. Ukraine's efforts to reclaim occupied territories are influenced by international agreements like the Minsk Agreements, which have been contentious and partially unfulfilled [5].

### Conclusion

While President Zelensky has indeed emphasized the importance of reclaiming occupied territories, including Crimea, through a comprehensive strategy that includes military preparedness, there is no specific law or statement from March 2021 that explicitly mentions the use of force as the primary method for reclaiming these areas. The strategy approved in March 2021 focuses on a multifaceted approach to de-occupation and reintegration, emphasizing international cooperation and negotiations [3].

Therefore, the claim is partially supported but lacks specificity regarding the use of force as a primary strategy. Ukraine's approach to reclaiming occupied territories involves a combination of diplomatic efforts, military preparedness, and international cooperation.

Citations

Claim

Tony Blinken stated that the U.S. aim on the first day of the war in Ukraine was to weaken Russia.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that **Tony Blinken stated that the U.S. aim on the first day of the war in Ukraine was to weaken Russia**, we need to examine public statements and addresses made by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and other relevant officials.

## Evidence and Analysis

1. **Public Statements by Antony Blinken**: In his speech in Helsinki, Finland, on June 2, 2023, Secretary Blinken discussed Russia's strategic failure in the war and the U.S. efforts to support Ukraine. However, he did not explicitly state that the U.S. aim from the start was to weaken Russia. Instead, he emphasized the U.S. commitment to supporting Ukraine and imposing costs on Russia for its aggression[1].

2. **Statement by Lloyd Austin**: Following a visit to Kyiv, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin mentioned that the U.S. wanted to see Russia weakened to the degree that it could not repeat its actions in Ukraine. However, U.S. officials later clarified that this did not represent a policy shift[3].

3. **U.S. Policy and Actions**: The U.S. has consistently supported Ukraine through military aid and economic sanctions against Russia. While these actions have contributed to weakening Russia's military and economic capabilities, they were primarily aimed at deterring Russian aggression and supporting Ukraine's defense[1][2].

## Conclusion

The claim that **Tony Blinken stated the U.S. aim on the first day of the war in Ukraine was to weaken Russia** is not supported by direct evidence from Blinken's public statements. While U.S. actions have contributed to weakening Russia, the primary goal was to support Ukraine and deter Russian aggression. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin's comments about weakening Russia were later clarified as not reflecting a policy shift, suggesting that weakening Russia was not the initial primary objective but rather a consequence of U.S. actions to counter Russian aggression[1][3].

Citations

Claim

Russia has expanded its army by 50% since the onset of the war in Ukraine.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that **Russia has expanded its army by 50% since the onset of the war in Ukraine**, we need to examine the available data on Russia's military size before and after the war began in February 2022.

## Pre-War Military Size
Before the war, Russia had approximately **1 million active-duty troops** and a total of about **1.3 million** when including reserves and paramilitary forces[2].

## Post-War Expansion
Since the war began, Russia has undertaken several expansions:

1. **Initial Expansion**: By early 2023, Russia had significantly increased its military presence in Ukraine, with estimates suggesting around **360,000 troops** were involved in the conflict[5].

2. **Recent Expansion Plans**: In September 2024, President Putin ordered an expansion of the Russian military by **180,000 troops**, aiming to reach a total of **1.5 million personnel**[3]. This expansion is part of a broader effort to bolster Russia's military capabilities.

3. **2025 Expansion Plans**: Additionally, there are reports that Russia plans to increase its military by another **150,000 troops** in 2025, through conscription and recruitment efforts[1].

## Evaluating the Claim
To assess whether Russia's army has expanded by 50% since the war began:

– **Pre-War Size**: Approximately 1 million active-duty troops.
– **Post-War Size (Planned)**: 1.5 million total personnel by the end of 2024, and potentially more with the additional 150,000 troops planned for 2025.

The expansion from 1 million to 1.5 million represents a 50% increase in the active-duty component if we consider the broader military personnel count (including reserves and paramilitary forces) before and after the expansion. However, the exact percentage increase depends on how one defines "army" in this context—whether it includes only active-duty troops or the broader military personnel count.

## Conclusion
The claim that Russia has expanded its army by 50% since the onset of the war in Ukraine can be considered partially accurate, especially if we look at the broader expansion plans and the total military personnel count. However, the exact percentage increase might vary depending on how one interprets "army" and the specific time frames considered. The expansion efforts are significant and reflect Russia's strategic response to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

## Evidence and Sources:
– **Pre-War and Post-War Military Size**: [2], [3], [5]– **Expansion Plans**: [1], [3]

Citations

Claim

We lost our pre-eminence because of this (the situation with Russia).

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "We Lost Our Pre-eminence Because of This (the Situation with Russia)"

The claim suggests that the United States has lost its pre-eminent position in global affairs due to the situation involving Russia, particularly the conflict in Ukraine. To assess this claim, we need to examine recent geopolitical developments and scholarly analyses.

### Argument Against the Claim

1. **Cementing U.S. Preeminence**: Some scholars argue that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has actually helped cement the United States' preeminent position in global affairs. By providing significant military aid to Ukraine, the U.S. has weakened Russia's military and economic capabilities, reducing its influence as a great power[1]. This action has also brought the trans-Atlantic alliance closer together, reinforcing Western unity against authoritarian challengers like China and Russia[1].

2. **Strengthening Western Alliances**: The conflict has led to a stronger alliance between the U.S. and its European partners, enhancing their collective military, economic, and diplomatic capabilities. This unity is seen as a counterbalance to the growing China-Russia partnership, which aims to undermine the U.S.-led international order[1][3].

### Argument Supporting the Claim

1. **Challenges to U.S. Influence**: The China-Russia alignment is seen as a significant challenge to U.S. global influence. Both countries are working to erode American leadership by promoting alternative narratives and institutions, particularly in the Global South[3]. This could potentially diminish U.S. influence in shaping international norms and institutions.

2. **Strategic Competition**: The U.S. faces intense strategic competition from China, which is increasingly challenging U.S. dominance in economic and technological spheres. While the U.S. remains a military powerhouse, its influence in shaping the international order is being contested[2]. The situation with Russia adds complexity to this competition, as it forces the U.S. to manage multiple fronts simultaneously[2].

### Conclusion

The claim that the U.S. has lost its pre-eminence due to the situation with Russia is not entirely accurate. While the conflict has presented challenges and complexities for U.S. foreign policy, it has also strengthened Western alliances and reinforced U.S. leadership in countering authoritarian powers. However, the growing China-Russia partnership does pose significant threats to U.S. global influence, necessitating careful strategic management by the U.S. to maintain its position in the evolving international landscape[1][2][3].

In summary, the situation with Russia has both bolstered U.S. alliances and presented new challenges to its global influence, particularly in the context of rising competition from China and Russia. Therefore, the claim of a straightforward loss of pre-eminence is an oversimplification of the complex geopolitical dynamics at play.

Citations

Claim

Russia has talked openly about, if they get into conflict with us, our satellites are the first thing coming down.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that "Russia has talked openly about, if they get into conflict with us, our satellites are the first thing coming down" can be evaluated based on recent statements and actions by Russian officials and military strategies.

## Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Russian Official Statements**: A senior Russian Foreign Ministry official, Konstantin Vorontsov, has warned that Western commercial satellites could become "legitimate" targets if they are involved in the conflict in Ukraine. This statement was made at the United Nations, emphasizing the potential for targeting satellites used to aid Ukraine[1].

2. **Anti-Satellite Capabilities**: Russia has demonstrated its anti-satellite capabilities by launching an anti-satellite missile to destroy one of its own decommissioned satellites. This shows Russia's ability and willingness to engage in space warfare[1].

3. **Nuclear Anti-Satellite Concerns**: There have been allegations and concerns about Russia developing nuclear anti-satellite weapons, which could significantly impact satellite operations. While Russia denies these allegations, the U.S. remains concerned about the potential for such weapons[2][4].

4. **Electronic Warfare Capabilities**: Reports indicate that Russia has developed satellites with electronic warfare capabilities that can target American satellites, posing a significant threat to U.S. space assets[3].

## Conclusion

While the specific phrase "our satellites are the first thing coming down" may not be directly attributed to Russian officials, there is substantial evidence that Russia views Western satellites as potential targets in a conflict. This includes official warnings about targeting satellites involved in the Ukraine conflict and Russia's demonstrated capabilities in space warfare. Therefore, the claim reflects a genuine concern based on Russian statements and actions.

## Recommendations for Future Verification

– **Monitor Official Statements**: Continue to track official statements from Russian officials regarding their stance on targeting satellites in conflicts.
– **Follow Developments in Space Warfare**: Keep abreast of advancements in Russia's anti-satellite technologies and strategies.
– **International Legal Frameworks**: Review international laws and agreements related to space warfare to understand the legal implications of targeting satellites.

Citations

Claim

We would get hammered if we had to fight the Russian army right now.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "We would get hammered if we had to fight the Russian army right now."

To assess the validity of this claim, we must consider current military capabilities, strategic readiness, and expert analyses comparing U.S. and Russian forces.

### Current Military Capabilities

1. **U.S. Military Capabilities:**
– The U.S. military is known for its advanced technology, strategic planning, and global reach. It maintains a strong presence in various regions, including Europe and Asia, through alliances and bases[1].
– The U.S. has been focusing on modernizing its forces, emphasizing joint operations, and enhancing interoperability with allies[1].

2. **Russian Military Capabilities:**
– Russia has faced significant challenges in Ukraine, revealing weaknesses in logistics, command structure, and equipment maintenance[2].
– Despite these challenges, Russia continues to invest in modernizing its military, particularly in areas like nuclear deterrence and advanced missile systems[4].

### Strategic Readiness and Expert Analyses

1. **U.S. Strategic Readiness:**
– The U.S. military emphasizes readiness through exercises like Justified Accord 2025, which enhances multinational cooperation and crisis response capabilities[3][5].
– Military leaders stress the importance of timely budget approvals to maintain operational readiness and modernize equipment[1].

2. **Russian Strategic Readiness:**
– Russia's military performance in Ukraine has been marred by logistical issues and overestimation of its capabilities by Western analysts[2].
– The ongoing conflict has led to significant attrition of Russian land forces, complicating efforts to reconstitute and expand its military[4].

### Conclusion

The claim that the U.S. would be "hammered" by the Russian army is overly simplistic and not supported by a nuanced analysis of military capabilities and strategic readiness. While Russia has shown resilience and a willingness to modernize its military, its recent performance in Ukraine highlights significant operational challenges. Meanwhile, the U.S. maintains a technologically advanced and globally integrated military posture, with ongoing efforts to enhance readiness and interoperability.

However, predicting the outcome of a hypothetical conflict between the U.S. and Russia is inherently complex due to factors like strategic unpredictability, technological advancements, and the dynamic nature of modern warfare[2]. Therefore, while the U.S. military has advantages in technology and global reach, the claim should be viewed with caution, recognizing the uncertainties and complexities involved in assessing military conflicts.

### Evidence and Citations

– **U.S. Military Readiness and Budget:** The U.S. military emphasizes maintaining operational readiness and modernizing equipment, with leaders urging timely budget approvals to avoid readiness issues[1].
– **Russian Military Performance:** The Russian military's performance in Ukraine has been marked by logistical challenges and overestimation by Western analysts, complicating assessments of its capabilities[2][4].
– **Multinational Exercises:** Exercises like Justified Accord 2025 demonstrate U.S. commitment to multinational cooperation and readiness, enhancing its strategic position[3][5].

Citations

Claim

We should pause and ask, what are we learning from what's happening in Ukraine?

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim "We should pause and ask, what are we learning from what's happening in Ukraine?" reflects a sentiment that emphasizes the importance of analyzing the ongoing conflict in Ukraine to derive valuable insights for military strategy adjustments. This perspective is supported by various analyses and studies on the conflict, which highlight several key lessons:

## Lessons from the Ukraine-Russia Conflict

1. **Adaptation and Innovation**:
– The conflict in Ukraine has shown that both sides have continuously adapted and innovated in response to changing battlefield conditions. For example, Ukraine has effectively used drones and electronic warfare, while Russia has adjusted its tactics to counter these advancements[4][5]. This ongoing adaptation underscores the importance of flexibility in military strategy.

2. **Tactical Shifts**:
– Russia's use of mercenaries, such as the Wagner Group, and its integration into regular forces has introduced new assault tactics. These tactics involve massive expendable forces followed by consolidation with trained soldiers, as seen in battles like Bakhmut[1]. This shift highlights the need for military forces to be prepared for unconventional tactics.

3. **Mission Command and Decentralization**:
– The Ukrainian military has attempted to adopt Western-style mission command, which emphasizes decentralization and subordinate initiative. However, they face challenges in scaling this approach due to structural and cultural issues[3]. Russia, on the other hand, maintains a centralized command structure, which has proven effective in defensive positions but limiting in offensive operations[3].

4. **Technological Advancements**:
– The conflict has underscored the role of technology, including drones, electronic warfare, and air defense systems. Ukraine's use of HIMARS and decentralized fire direction systems has allowed for effective counterattacks against Russian forces[3][4]. This highlights the importance of integrating advanced technology into military operations.

5. **Strategic Objectives and Diplomacy**:
– Both sides have maintained their strategic objectives, but the means to achieve them have evolved. Ukraine's long-term security requires constructing a credible deterrence posture, while Russia seeks to influence international opinion and fracture alliances[2][5]. This emphasizes the need for sustained diplomatic efforts alongside military actions.

## Conclusion

The claim that we should learn from the Ukraine conflict is valid and supported by various analyses. The conflict offers valuable insights into military strategy, technological innovation, and diplomatic efforts. These lessons can inform adjustments in military preparedness and strategic planning, not just for Ukraine but also for other nations facing similar challenges. The ongoing conflict serves as a critical case study for understanding the evolving nature of modern warfare and the importance of adaptability and innovation in military strategy.

Citations

We believe in transparency and accuracy. That’s why this blog post was verified with CheckForFacts.
Start your fact-checking journey today and make the world a more informed place!