In the latest episode of The Ben Shapiro Show, Episode 2142, we delve into President Trump’s recent comments aimed at Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, as well as the implications of potential cuts being discussed by the Department of Defense. Furthermore, we examine Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s ambitions within the Democratic Party leadership. With such contentious topics at hand, it’s crucial to scrutinize the claims made and the context in which they are presented. In this blog post, we will fact-check the statements discussed in the show, providing clarity and insight into the rhetoric surrounding these pivotal political moments.

All information as of 02/21/2025

Fact Check Analysis

Claim

Democrats had control of the vote for three years and they did nothing regarding aid to Ukraine.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Democrats had control of the vote for three years and did nothing regarding aid to Ukraine, we need to examine the legislative actions taken by the U.S. Congress during periods when Democrats held control.

## Legislative Control and Aid to Ukraine

1. **Congressional Control and Aid Packages:**
– **Pre-2023:** Before the 118th Congress (which began in January 2023), Democrats controlled both the House and Senate during the 117th Congress (2021-2023). During this period, significant aid packages were passed to support Ukraine. For example, in 2022, Congress approved a $40 billion aid package for Ukraine, which included military and humanitarian assistance[3]. This indicates that Democrats did take action to support Ukraine during their control.

2. **Recent Developments:**
– In 2024, despite Republicans holding the majority in the House, a bipartisan effort led to the passage of a $61 billion aid package for Ukraine. This package was supported by both Democrats and Republicans, highlighting ongoing bipartisan support for Ukraine[1][3].

3. **Accountability and Oversight:**
– The House Foreign Affairs Committee has conducted hearings to ensure accountability and transparency in U.S. assistance to Ukraine. These efforts include third-party monitoring and oversight by Congress to ensure funds are used as intended[2].

## Conclusion

The claim that Democrats did nothing regarding aid to Ukraine during their legislative control is **inaccurate**. During the periods when Democrats held control, significant aid packages were approved to support Ukraine. Additionally, bipartisan efforts have continued to provide substantial assistance to Ukraine, demonstrating ongoing support across party lines.

## Evidence Summary

– **Legislative Actions:** Democrats supported and passed significant aid packages for Ukraine during their control, such as the $40 billion package in 2022.
– **Bipartisan Support:** Recent aid packages, like the $61 billion approved in 2024, show continued bipartisan support for Ukraine.
– **Accountability Measures:** Congress has implemented oversight mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability in aid distribution[1][2][3].

Citations

Claim

Russia attacked Ukraine.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: "Russia Attacked Ukraine"

The claim that Russia attacked Ukraine is supported by extensive evidence from reputable sources, including government reports, international organizations, and historical analyses.

### Background and Evidence

1. **Full-Scale Invasion**: On February 24, 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, marking a significant escalation of the conflict that began in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea[1][3]. This invasion involved missile strikes and ground assaults across multiple fronts, including Kyiv, Kharkiv, and the Donbas region[1][3].

2. **International Condemnation**: The invasion was widely condemned by the international community. The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution demanding Russia's withdrawal, and the International Court of Justice ordered Russia to suspend military operations[1]. The Council of Europe expelled Russia, further isolating it internationally[1].

3. **Humanitarian Crisis**: The conflict resulted in one of the largest refugee crises in Europe since World War II, with over 7 million refugees fleeing Ukraine by September 2022[1]. This humanitarian crisis underscores the severity of the situation.

4. **Propaganda and Disinformation**: Russia has been accused of spreading disinformation to justify its actions, including claims of genocide and the need to "denazify" Ukraine[2][3]. These claims have been rejected by the international community as baseless[1][2].

5. **Government Reports**: Official reports from governments like the United States and Canada have consistently documented Russia's military buildup and aggression against Ukraine[5][2].

### Conclusion

Based on the evidence from reliable sources, the claim that Russia attacked Ukraine is **valid**. The full-scale invasion in February 2022, coupled with international condemnation and the humanitarian crisis it precipitated, confirms that Russia initiated a significant military assault on Ukraine.

### Additional Context

Recent statements by former U.S. President Donald Trump criticizing Ukrainian President Zelensky and suggesting Ukraine should repay U.S. military aid have been seen as aligning with Russian narratives but are not directly relevant to the fact of the Russian invasion. These comments reflect ongoing political dynamics surrounding the conflict rather than challenging the established facts about the invasion itself.

Citations

Claim

There is no good reason for Russia to attack Ukraine.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "There is no good reason for Russia to attack Ukraine."

To assess the validity of this claim, we must consider the geopolitical context, historical events, and the perspectives of involved parties. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is complex, involving issues of sovereignty, territorial disputes, and geopolitical alignments.

### Historical Context

1. **Russian Interests and Actions**: Russia's actions in Ukraine are often justified by Putin as necessary to protect ethnic Russians and maintain regional influence. However, these claims are contested by Ukraine and the international community, who view them as attempts to undermine Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity[2][3].

2. **Annexation of Crimea**: In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea, which was widely condemned by the international community. This event marked a significant escalation in tensions between Russia and Ukraine[2].

3. **Full-Scale Invasion in 2022**: Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, citing NATO expansion as a threat, despite NATO's collective defense nature and Ukraine's right to pursue its foreign policy goals[2][3].

### Geopolitical Analysis

1. **NATO and EU Integration**: Ukraine's desire to integrate with NATO and the EU has been a point of contention. While Ukraine seeks closer ties with the West, Russia views this as a threat to its regional dominance[2].

2. **Russian Propaganda and Disinformation**: Putin has used disinformation to portray Ukraine as illegitimate and to justify military actions. This includes claims that Ukraine's government is not legitimate and that Western support is the only reason Ukraine can resist Russian aggression[1][3].

3. **International Law**: The invasion of Ukraine by Russia is considered a violation of international law, specifically the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity enshrined in the UN Charter[2].

### Evaluation of the Claim

Given the historical and geopolitical context, the claim that "there is no good reason for Russia to attack Ukraine" can be evaluated as follows:

– **Legitimate Reasons**: From Russia's perspective, maintaining regional influence and protecting ethnic Russians are cited as reasons for intervention. However, these reasons are not recognized as legitimate by the international community, which views them as pretextual[2][3].

– **International Consensus**: The international community, including most Western nations, does not recognize Russia's actions as justified. They are seen as a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity[2][3].

– **Propaganda and Disinformation**: Putin's claims about Ukraine's legitimacy and the role of Western aid are part of a broader disinformation campaign aimed at undermining Western support for Ukraine[1][3].

### Conclusion

In conclusion, while Russia may cite certain reasons for its actions in Ukraine, these are not recognized as valid by the international community. The invasion is widely viewed as a violation of international law and an unjustified aggression against a sovereign state. Therefore, the claim that "there is no good reason for Russia to attack Ukraine" is supported by the majority of international legal and geopolitical analyses.

### Evidence and References

– **International Law Violations**: The invasion violates principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity[2].
– **Geopolitical Context**: Russia's actions are driven by a desire to maintain regional influence and undermine Ukraine's sovereignty[2][3].
– **Disinformation Campaigns**: Putin's statements are part of a broader effort to delegitimize Ukraine and justify Russian aggression[1][3].

Citations

Claim

Ukraine has continued existing in the face of the Russian bear is considered a victory.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "Ukraine has continued existing in the face of the Russian bear is considered a victory."

The claim that Ukraine's continued existence in the face of Russian aggression is considered a victory can be evaluated through several lenses, including military resilience, societal cohesion, and geopolitical implications.

### Military Resilience

Ukraine's ability to resist and counterattack against the Russian invasion has been a significant factor in its continued existence. Despite initial skepticism about Ukraine's military capabilities, the country has shown remarkable resilience and adaptability. This includes the rapid mobilization of both military and civilian components, with over 100,000 volunteers joining territorial defense units early in the conflict[3]. The Ukrainian military has also demonstrated creativity and resourcefulness, such as adapting American equipment to work with old Soviet jets[3].

### Societal Cohesion and Civil Society

Ukraine's resilience is not just military; it is also deeply rooted in societal cohesion and civil society engagement. The country has a vibrant network of voluntary organizations supporting displaced families and military units[3]. Additionally, past experiences with civic resistance movements have fine-tuned Ukraine's ability to act without waiting for instructions, contributing to its resilience[3]. The digitalization of public services, initiated by President Zelenskyy, has also played a crucial role in maintaining administrative functions during the war[3].

### Geopolitical Implications

Geopolitically, Ukraine's continued existence as an independent state is seen as a victory against Russian aggression. The international community, particularly Western nations, view Ukraine's sovereignty as essential for regional security and a deterrent against further Russian expansion[2]. The ongoing conflict has led to significant economic and diplomatic pressure on Russia, including sanctions and the immobilization of Russian assets[2].

### Expert Assessments

Experts and scholars often associate Ukraine's resilience with its cultural identity, decentralized society, and aspirations for integration into the Euro-Atlantic community[1]. This perspective emphasizes that Ukraine's resilience is not solely a result of external support but is deeply rooted in indigenous values and historical experiences[1].

### Conclusion

In conclusion, the claim that Ukraine's continued existence in the face of Russian aggression is considered a victory is substantiated by evidence of military resilience, societal cohesion, and geopolitical significance. Ukraine's ability to maintain its sovereignty and resist Russian aggression has been recognized as a significant achievement, both domestically and internationally. This resilience is not just a military victory but also a testament to the strength of Ukrainian society and its commitment to independence and integration with Western institutions.

**Evidence and Citations:**

– **Military Resilience:** Ukraine's military has shown adaptability and creativity, earning it comparisons to a "MacGyver's army"[3].
– **Societal Cohesion:** Civil society and voluntary organizations have played a crucial role in supporting displaced families and military units[3].
– **Geopolitical Implications:** Ukraine's sovereignty is seen as vital for regional security and a deterrent against Russian expansion[2].
– **Expert Assessments:** Ukraine's resilience is attributed to indigenous values and historical experiences[1].

Citations

Claim

Ukraine's control over its territory has been significantly impacted since summer of 2022.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: Ukraine's Control Over Its Territory Has Been Significantly Impacted Since Summer 2022

To assess the validity of the claim that Ukraine's control over its territory has been significantly impacted since summer 2022, we need to examine reports on territorial control and military engagements in Ukraine during this period.

### Background and Context

The conflict in Ukraine escalated significantly with the full-scale Russian invasion on February 24, 2022. Prior to this, there were ongoing tensions and skirmishes in the Donbas region since 2014. The invasion marked a major shift in the conflict, with Russia aiming to capture significant portions of Ukrainian territory, including strategic cities and regions[1][4].

### Territorial Control Since Summer 2022

Since the summer of 2022, the conflict has been characterized by a stalemate with periods of intense fighting, particularly in eastern and southern Ukraine. Russia has maintained control over substantial areas, including parts of Donbas and Crimea, which it annexed in 2014[1][3].

– **Russian Territorial Gains**: By February 2025, Russia controlled approximately 19% of Ukraine's territory, including Crimea and parts of Donbas seized before and after the full-scale invasion[3][5]. This indicates a significant impact on Ukraine's territorial control.

– **Ukrainian Counteroffensives**: Ukraine has launched several counteroffensives, including a major one in June 2023, aimed at regaining territory. However, these efforts have met with stiff resistance, and while Ukraine has made some gains, they have been limited[1][2].

– **Recent Developments**: In early 2025, Russia continued to gain small amounts of territory, while Ukraine made minimal gains in Russian territory outside Ukraine[3][5].

### Conclusion

The claim that Ukraine's control over its territory has been significantly impacted since summer 2022 is **valid**. The ongoing conflict has resulted in substantial territorial losses for Ukraine, particularly in the Donbas region and Crimea. Despite Ukrainian counteroffensives, Russia maintains control over a significant portion of Ukraine's territory, and the conflict remains unresolved[1][3][4].

### Evidence and Citations

– The conflict has led to Russia controlling about 19% of Ukraine's territory by early 2025[3][5].
– Ukraine's counteroffensives have faced significant resistance, limiting their territorial gains[1][2].
– The ongoing stalemate and Russian military presence continue to impact Ukraine's territorial control[1][4].

Citations

Claim

Europe has actually spent slightly more money than the United States when you aggregate all of the European countries together, they spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $138 billion or committed that much money.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: European Spending on Ukraine

The claim suggests that when aggregated, European countries have spent or committed slightly more money than the United States in support of Ukraine, with an estimated figure of around $138 billion. To assess this claim, we need to examine recent financial commitments and expenditures by European countries and compare them with those of the United States.

### European Assistance to Ukraine

1. **EU and Member States' Commitments**: As of January 2024, the EU and its member states have committed close to $145 billion in financial, military, humanitarian, and refugee assistance to Ukraine since the start of the war[1]. This figure includes both direct EU contributions and those from individual member states.

2. **Additional Commitments**: In February 2024, European leaders agreed to commit up to $54 billion until 2027 for the Ukraine Facility, which supports Ukraine's recovery and accession path to the EU[1]. Furthermore, in October 2024, the EU and G7 partners agreed to provide loans of $50 billion, with the EU contributing $20 billion, to support Ukraine's budgetary, military, and reconstruction needs[1].

3. **Military Aid**: Europe has been a significant provider of military aid to Ukraine. Between January 2022 and August 2024, Germany provided the most military aid among European countries, totaling 10.6 billion euros, followed by the UK with 9.4 billion euros[3].

### U.S. Assistance to Ukraine

1. **Total U.S. Commitments**: As of December 31, 2024, U.S. allocations to Ukraine reached almost $120 billion[5]. This includes financial support, humanitarian aid, and military equipment.

### Comparison and Conclusion

– **European Commitments vs. U.S. Commitments**: The total European commitments, including both EU and non-EU countries, have been reported to be nearly double those of the U.S., with European commitments exceeding $200 billion when including all forms of aid[4]. However, the specific claim of $138 billion spent or committed by Europe seems to be an underestimation based on recent figures.

– **Validation of the Claim**: While the claim that Europe has spent or committed more than the U.S. is generally accurate, the specific figure of $138 billion appears to be lower than the actual commitments made by European countries collectively. The EU alone has committed close to $145 billion, and when including other European countries, the total is significantly higher.

In conclusion, the claim that Europe has committed more than the U.S. is supported by evidence, but the specific figure of $138 billion seems to be an underestimate based on available data. European countries, including both EU and non-EU members, have indeed committed significantly more than the U.S. in support of Ukraine.

Citations

Claim

The majority of the opposition parties in Ukraine are currently defending President Zelensky.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Majority of Opposition Parties in Ukraine Defend President Zelensky

To assess the validity of the claim that the majority of opposition parties in Ukraine are currently defending President Volodymyr Zelensky, we need to examine recent statements from major opposition parties and public opinion polls regarding support for Zelensky.

### Opposition Party Statements

1. **Petro Poroshenko and Yulia Tymoshenko**: Both are prominent figures in Ukrainian politics and have been critical of Zelensky on various issues. However, they have publicly rejected the idea of holding elections during wartime, which aligns with Zelensky's stance. This does not necessarily mean they are defending him but indicates a shared position on the impracticality of wartime elections[4].

2. **General Support for Zelensky During War**: While there is no widespread public defense of Zelensky by opposition parties in the traditional sense, the ongoing war has created a sense of national unity. Many Ukrainians, including some opposition figures, prioritize national survival over political differences, which might be interpreted as tacit support for the current leadership during this critical period[4].

### Public Opinion Polling

1. **Approval Ratings**: Recent polls show that Zelensky's approval rating has increased to 57%, indicating a level of public support for his leadership during the war[1][2]. This suggests that while opposition parties may not be actively defending him, there is significant public backing for Zelensky.

2. **Rejection of Wartime Elections**: A significant majority of Ukrainians (63%) oppose holding elections during the war, which aligns with Zelensky's position and reflects a broader national consensus rather than specific party support[4].

### Conclusion

While there is no clear evidence that the majority of opposition parties are actively defending President Zelensky, there is a shared understanding among many Ukrainians, including some opposition figures, that wartime is not the appropriate time for elections. This stance aligns with Zelensky's position but does not necessarily equate to active defense of his leadership. The claim might be overstated or misinterpreted, as the primary focus is on national unity and survival during the ongoing conflict rather than political partisanship.

### Evidence Summary

– **Opposition Party Stance**: Major opposition figures like Petro Poroshenko and Yulia Tymoshenko have not actively defended Zelensky but share his view on the impracticality of wartime elections[4].
– **Public Support**: Zelensky enjoys significant public approval, with a recent rating of 57%, and there is widespread opposition to holding elections during the war[1][2][4].
– **National Unity**: The ongoing conflict has fostered a sense of national unity, with many Ukrainians prioritizing survival over political differences[4].

Citations

Claim

Approximately 43,000 people have died in the war in Ukraine between February 2022 and December 2024.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Approximately 43,000 People Have Died in the War in Ukraine Between February 2022 and December 2024

The claim that approximately 43,000 people have died in the war in Ukraine between February 2022 and December 2024 pertains specifically to Ukrainian military casualties. To evaluate this claim, we need to consider both military and civilian casualties, as well as the sources of these figures.

### Military Casualties

– **Ukrainian Military Casualties**: As of December 2024, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated that 43,000 Ukrainian soldiers had been killed since the start of the full-scale invasion in February 2022[1][2][4]. This figure was later updated to 45,100 soldiers killed in an interview with Piers Morgan in February 2025[5].

– **Russian Military Casualties**: Zelensky also claimed that 198,000 Russian soldiers had been killed and 550,000 injured, though these figures are not verifiable and are contested by Russia[1]. Other estimates, such as those from U.S. intelligence sources, suggest lower numbers for Russian losses, with around 120,000 dead and 170,000–180,000 wounded as of August 2023[1].

### Civilian Casualties

– **Civilian Deaths**: The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) reported that as of December 31, 2024, there were 12,456 civilian deaths in Ukraine since the start of the war[3].

### Conclusion

The claim that approximately 43,000 people have died in the war in Ukraine between February 2022 and December 2024 is accurate when referring specifically to Ukrainian military casualties as reported by President Zelensky in December 2024. However, this figure has since been updated to 45,100. When considering both military and civilian casualties, the total number of deaths is significantly higher, but the exact figure remains uncertain due to the lack of verifiable data from both Ukraine and Russia.

### Evidence and Sources

– **Ukrainian Military Deaths**: Zelensky's statements provide the basis for the claim of 43,000 Ukrainian military deaths, which was later revised to 45,100[1][2][4][5].
– **Civilian Deaths**: OHCHR's reports confirm 12,456 civilian deaths as of December 31, 2024[3].
– **Russian Military Casualties**: Estimates vary widely, with Ukrainian claims differing significantly from other reports[1][5].

In summary, while the claim about Ukrainian military deaths is supported by official statements, the broader context of the war includes both military and civilian casualties, with varying estimates and uncertainties surrounding Russian losses.

Citations

Claim

The United States has committed somewhere in the arena of $120 billion to Ukraine as of the end of last year.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: U.S. Commitment to Ukraine

The claim states that the United States has committed approximately $120 billion to Ukraine as of the end of last year. To evaluate this claim, we will examine official financial disclosures and budget reports from reliable sources.

### Evidence and Analysis

1. **Total U.S. Aid to Ukraine**: As of September 30, 2024, the U.S. had appropriated nearly $183 billion for the Ukraine response, with $130.1 billion obligated and $86.7 billion disbursed[1]. This figure includes military aid, economic support, and humanitarian assistance.

2. **Breakdown of U.S. Aid**: The U.S. has provided about $65.9 billion in military aid to Ukraine, with an additional $3.9 billion authorized but unspent[2]. Approximately $58 billion of the total aid was spent within the U.S., primarily to boost the defense industry by replacing or procuring new weapons[2].

3. **Comparison with Other Sources**: The Kiel Institute for the World Economy reports that European nations have allocated about $140 billion in total aid to Ukraine, while the U.S. has allocated about $120 billion in total aid, including military, humanitarian, and financial assistance[2]. However, this figure might not reflect the most recent updates or the specific breakdown of U.S. commitments.

4. **Recent Financial Commitments**: The U.S. Congress has passed five bills with a total budget authority of roughly $175 billion for Ukraine since the start of the war[3]. This includes significant military and economic support, with a substantial portion spent within the U.S. to support the defense industry.

### Conclusion

While the claim that the U.S. has committed around $120 billion to Ukraine is somewhat supported by reports from the Kiel Institute, it does not fully align with the broader context of U.S. financial commitments. The U.S. has indeed allocated significant funds, but the total appropriation for Ukraine is higher, nearing $183 billion as of September 2024[1]. The $120 billion figure might refer specifically to certain types of aid or a snapshot in time, but it does not capture the full scope of U.S. financial commitments to Ukraine.

### Recommendations for Further Verification

– **Official Government Reports**: For precise figures, refer to official U.S. government reports and financial disclosures, such as those from the Department of Defense and the U.S. Agency for International Development.
– **Interagency Oversight**: Utilize data from interagency oversight groups responsible for tracking U.S. appropriations to Ukraine.
– **International Comparisons**: Consider reports from reputable international organizations like the Kiel Institute for broader context on global aid to Ukraine.

Citations

Claim

President Zelensky is democratically elected and legitimate until another is elected.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: President Zelensky is Democratically Elected and Legitimate Until Another is Elected

To assess the validity of the claim that President Volodymyr Zelensky is democratically elected and legitimate until another president is elected, we must examine the electoral process in Ukraine, Zelensky's election, and the current legal framework governing his tenure.

### 1. **Democratic Election of Zelensky**

Volodymyr Zelensky was elected as the President of Ukraine in April 2019, winning a landslide victory with over 73% of the vote in the runoff election. This election was widely recognized as free and fair by international observers, including the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the European Union[1][5].

### 2. **Legitimacy and Current Status**

Zelensky's five-year term was set to expire in May 2024. However, due to the ongoing conflict with Russia and the declaration of martial law, elections in Ukraine have been suspended. Ukrainian electoral law prohibits holding elections during martial law, and the constitution stipulates that the president continues to serve until a successor is elected[4][5].

### 3. **Legal Framework and Legitimacy Concerns**

While some legal ambiguity exists regarding the extension of Zelensky's term, the Ukrainian constitution does not explicitly ban holding elections under martial law. However, it does state that the president should continue to serve until a successor is elected. This has led to debates about Zelensky's legitimacy, with some arguing that the speaker of the parliament should become acting president after his term expires[4].

### 4. **International Support and Recognition**

Despite criticisms from figures like Donald Trump, Zelensky is widely recognized as a democratically elected leader by European leaders and international organizations. His legitimacy is supported by his continued high approval ratings among Ukrainians, with recent polls indicating over 50% trust in his leadership[2][5].

### Conclusion

Based on the evidence, President Zelensky was democratically elected and remains legitimate under Ukrainian law until another president is elected. The suspension of elections due to martial law is in line with Ukrainian electoral laws and the constitution. While there are legal debates and political challenges, Zelensky's democratic mandate and ongoing support from the international community affirm his legitimacy.

**Evidence Summary:**
– **Democratic Election:** Zelensky was elected in a free and fair process in 2019.
– **Legal Framework:** Ukrainian law allows the president to continue serving until a successor is elected during martial law.
– **International Recognition:** Widely recognized as a democratically elected leader by international bodies.
– **Public Support:** Maintains significant public trust and approval in Ukraine.

Citations

Claim

According to one NATO official, Russia's overall dead and wounded in this war amounts to 837,000.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Russia's Military Casualties in Ukraine

The claim that Russia's overall dead and wounded in the Ukraine war amount to 837,000, as attributed to a NATO official, requires scrutiny against available reports and estimates from reliable sources.

### Available Estimates

1. **Verified Deaths**: As of January 2025, verified Russian troop deaths in Ukraine have surpassed 90,000, with estimates suggesting the true number could be between 138,500 and 200,000, considering only about half of the casualties are verified[1].

2. **Total Casualties**: Estimates from Western and Ukrainian intelligence agencies place Russia's total casualties (killed, wounded, and missing) between 600,000 and 700,000 as of October 2024[1]. More recent estimates suggest over 700,000 killed or injured[3][5].

3. **Comparative Figures**: Other reports and estimates vary widely. For instance, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has suggested 180,000 Russian soldiers killed, while British estimates are around 450,000 total battlefield casualties[2]. US Assistant Secretary of Defense Celeste Wallander mentioned at least 315,000 casualties[2].

4. **Recent Claims**: Donald Trump estimated 1 million Russian soldiers killed, though this figure is not supported by most official or verified sources[3][5].

### Conclusion

The claim of 837,000 Russian military casualties (dead and wounded) is not directly supported by the majority of available estimates. While some reports suggest totals in the range of 600,000 to over 700,000 casualties (including killed, wounded, and missing), these figures are not universally agreed upon and vary significantly across different sources. The claim appears to be an outlier compared to most estimates, which tend to focus on broader casualty ranges rather than a precise figure like 837,000.

### Recommendations for Verification

– **NATO Reports**: Official NATO reports or statements would be crucial in verifying this specific claim. However, as of the latest available information, NATO has not publicly confirmed such a precise figure.
– **Consensus Among Analysts**: A consensus among military analysts and intelligence agencies is necessary to validate such a specific number. Currently, estimates vary widely, making it challenging to pinpoint an exact figure like 837,000.
– **Transparent Data**: Access to transparent and comprehensive data from both Russian and Ukrainian sources would significantly aid in verifying casualty figures. However, both sides have been reluctant to disclose detailed casualty numbers.

Citations

Claim

Democrats decided to slow walk aid to Ukraine.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

The claim that Democrats decided to slow walk aid to Ukraine does not appear to be supported by recent congressional actions. In fact, Congress has approved significant amounts of aid for Ukraine, totaling $175 billion since 2022, with a substantial portion dedicated to defense-related priorities[1]. The Biden Administration has actively used various mechanisms to deliver military aid to Ukraine, including the Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA), the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), and Foreign Military Financing (FMF)[1].

However, there have been efforts by some Republicans, such as Senator Josh Hawley, to introduce legislation for an independent watchdog to oversee Ukraine aid, which was previously blocked by Democrats[3]. This suggests that while there may be political debates and disagreements over how aid is managed, there is no clear evidence that Democrats have intentionally slowed down aid to Ukraine.

Additionally, during the Trump presidency, there was a notable instance where military aid to Ukraine was withheld, reportedly due to concerns about corruption and European contributions, though this was later restored[2]. Despite these past controversies, the U.S. has continued to provide substantial support to Ukraine under both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Citations

Claim

In a Fox interview released last night, President Trump blamed Ukraine for Putin's invasion.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

President Trump has made several statements regarding the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which have been subject to scrutiny and fact-checking. Here are some key points:

1. **Blaming Ukraine**: Trump has been criticized for suggesting that Ukraine is responsible for the ongoing conflict with Russia. In a recent statement, he appeared to blame Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for Russia's invasion, echoing narratives often used by Russian President Vladimir Putin[2][5].

2. **Negotiation Claims**: Trump claimed that he had a lengthy call with Putin, during which they agreed to begin negotiations to end the war in Ukraine immediately. However, these claims have not been independently verified, and the situation remains complex[1].

3. **Disinformation and Propaganda**: Trump's statements have been likened to Russian propaganda, causing concern among European allies and sparking a reaction from Zelenskyy, who accused Trump of operating in a "disinformation space" fostered by Russia[2][5].

4. **Financial Assistance**: Trump inaccurately stated that the U.S. has provided $350 billion in military assistance to Ukraine, when in fact, the figure is around $65 billion according to the U.S. State Department[3].

5. **Zelenskyy's Leadership**: Trump also questioned Zelenskyy's leadership, calling him a "dictator without elections" despite Ukraine being in a state of war, which has necessitated the postponement of elections[3]. Zelenskyy's approval ratings remain significant, with nearly 60% of Ukrainians supporting him[3].

Citations

Claim

The Pentagon budget for 2025 is about $850 billion.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that the Pentagon budget for 2025 is about $850 billion, we need to consult reliable sources that provide information on the U.S. defense budget for that fiscal year.

1. **Defense Budget Overview**: The total defense spending for fiscal year 2024 was nearly $850 billion, according to Military Times[3]. However, the fiscal 2025 Defense Department budget has not yet been finalized, as the fiscal year began in October 2024, and Congress is still working on appropriations[3][5].

2. **Budget for FY 2025**: The Biden administration had requested a defense budget of $895 billion for FY 2025[5]. However, this figure is subject to change based on ongoing negotiations and budgetary decisions in Congress.

3. **Current Developments**: Recent reports indicate that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has proposed significant cuts to the defense budget, aiming for an 8% annual reduction through 2030[1][3]. This proposal is part of a broader effort to realign defense spending priorities under President Trump, focusing on areas like border security and nuclear modernization[1][3].

Given these developments, the claim that the Pentagon budget for 2025 is about $850 billion may not accurately reflect the current state of budget negotiations. The actual budget could be higher or lower, depending on the outcome of these negotiations and any proposed cuts or increases.

**Conclusion**: While the defense spending for FY 2024 was near $850 billion, the FY 2025 budget is still under negotiation. The Biden administration's request was for $895 billion, but potential cuts or changes proposed by the Trump administration could alter this figure. Therefore, the claim should be treated with caution until the FY 2025 budget is finalized.

**Evidence**:
– Total defense spending for FY 2024 was nearly $850 billion[3].
– The Biden administration requested $895 billion for FY 2025[5].
– Proposed cuts under the Trump administration could significantly alter the budget[1][3].

Citations

Claim

If adopted in full, the cuts would include tens of billions of dollars in each of the next five years.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Potential Budget Cuts and Their Implications

The claim suggests that if adopted in full, certain budget cuts would amount to tens of billions of dollars annually over the next five years. To assess this claim, we must consider recent budget proposals and their potential impacts, particularly in the context of defense spending and foreign aid.

### Budget Proposals and Cuts

1. **Defense Budget and Sequestration**: The Department of Defense faces significant challenges due to potential sequestration cuts, which could reduce its funding by operating under a cap of approximately $808 billion if all appropriations acts are not passed by April 30th[1]. This scenario would exert pressure on procurement and readiness accounts, potentially undoing efforts to improve readiness and modernize the military.

2. **Foreign Aid Suspension**: The U.S. has suspended foreign aid, including humanitarian and economic assistance, to review programs for alignment with new administration policies[2]. While military aid to Ukraine remains unaffected, other countries may see impacts on their military assistance.

3. **Proposed Federal Budget Cuts**: Proposed cuts in the federal budget target various programs, including Medicaid and nutrition assistance, which could have significant social impacts[3]. However, these cuts are not specifically framed as tens of billions annually over five years.

### Implications of Budget Cuts

– **Defense Spending**: Cuts in defense spending could lead to reduced procurement and readiness, impacting military modernization efforts[1].

– **Foreign Aid**: The suspension of foreign aid could have negative consequences for countries like Ukraine and Moldova, affecting development projects and humanitarian assistance[2].

– **Social Programs**: Cuts to social programs like Medicaid and SNAP could exacerbate poverty and health issues among vulnerable populations[3].

### Conclusion

While there are discussions about significant budget cuts across various sectors, including defense and social programs, the specific claim about tens of billions of dollars in cuts annually over five years is not directly supported by the available information. The implications of such cuts would be substantial, affecting military readiness, foreign aid, and social welfare programs. However, without precise figures or proposals explicitly stating these amounts, the claim remains unsubstantiated based on the provided sources.

To further evaluate this claim, detailed budget proposals and specific figures from reliable sources would be necessary.

Citations

Claim

China is spending close to $700 billion on their military every year and hiding it.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: China's Military Spending

The claim that China is spending close to $700 billion on its military annually and hiding it is a contentious issue, with varying estimates from different sources. Here's a detailed evaluation based on credible sources:

### Official Budget and Estimates

– **Official Budget**: China's official defense budget for 2024 is approximately $232 billion at market exchange rates[1]. This figure does not account for all military-related expenditures.

– **Adjusted Estimates**: Some analyses suggest that China's actual military spending could be higher due to off-budget items. Estimates range from about $295 billion to $309 billion when considering these additional expenditures[1]. However, these figures are still significantly lower than the $700 billion claim.

### Credible Sources and Estimates

– **Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)**: SIPRI estimates China's military spending at around $290 billion in 2022[4][5]. This figure is based on a comprehensive analysis of military expenditures beyond the official budget.

– **Other Estimates**: Some reports suggest that when accounting for purchasing power parity (PPP), China's military spending could reach up to $476 billion[5]. However, even this adjusted figure is below the $700 billion claim.

### The $700 Billion Claim

– **U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan's Statement**: Senator Sullivan mentioned that some U.S. government estimates place China's defense spending at around $700 billion[4]. However, this figure is not widely supported by other credible sources and appears to include speculative off-budget items and military-civilian fusion spending[4].

– **Critique of High Estimates**: High estimates like $700 billion are often criticized for including categories not consistently applied across both Chinese and U.S. defense spending comparisons[2]. These estimates may overstate China's military capabilities relative to its actual material assets and strategic focus[1].

### Conclusion

The claim that China is spending close to $700 billion annually on its military and hiding it lacks robust support from credible sources. While China's actual military spending is likely higher than its official budget due to off-budget items, estimates from reputable organizations like SIPRI and other analyses suggest figures significantly lower than $700 billion. Therefore, the claim appears exaggerated and not fully validated by current evidence.

### Recommendations for Further Research

1. **Transparency in Budgeting**: Increased transparency in China's military budgeting would help clarify the extent of off-budget spending.
2. **Consistent Comparison Methods**: Ensuring that comparisons between U.S. and Chinese defense spending use consistent categories and methodologies is crucial for accurate assessments.
3. **Purchasing Power Parity Adjustments**: Careful consideration of PPP adjustments can provide a more nuanced understanding of China's military spending power relative to its economic context.

Citations

Claim

The United States is spending approximately 3.6% of our GDP on defense.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: U.S. Defense Spending as a Percentage of GDP

The claim that the United States is spending approximately 3.6% of its GDP on defense can be verified using data from reputable sources.

### Evidence and Data

1. **World Bank Data**: According to the World Bank, military expenditure in the United States was reported at 3.3618% of GDP in 2023[1]. This figure aligns closely with the claim.

2. **Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)**: While SIPRI provides broader definitions of defense spending, their data highlights the significant scale of U.S. defense spending relative to other nations. However, SIPRI's figures might include additional components not covered by the World Bank's definition[2].

3. **Congressional Budget Office Projections**: The Congressional Budget Office projects that defense spending as a share of GDP will decline over the coming years, from 2.9% in 2024 to 2.5% by 2034[2]. This projection suggests a potential decrease from the current level but does not contradict the 2023 figure.

### Conclusion

Based on the available data, particularly from the World Bank, the claim that the United States is spending approximately 3.6% of its GDP on defense is **accurate** for the year 2023. This figure reflects the officially reported military expenditure as a percentage of GDP.

### Additional Context

– **Proposals for Increased Spending**: There are proposals to increase U.S. military spending to levels such as 5% or even higher percentages of GDP, which would significantly impact the current figures[3]. However, these proposals are not yet implemented.

– **Economic and Fiscal Implications**: Any significant increase in defense spending would have substantial fiscal implications, including potential impacts on the federal debt and budget allocations[3].

In summary, the claim about U.S. defense spending as a percentage of GDP is supported by current data, but future spending levels could change based on policy decisions and geopolitical factors.

Citations

Claim

Elbridge Kolby argues that we need to reorient American interests away from Europe and the Middle East and toward China.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Elbridge Colby's Views on Reorienting American Interests

The claim that Elbridge Colby argues for reorienting American interests away from Europe and the Middle East and toward China can be evaluated through his public statements and writings on foreign policy.

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Focus on China**: Elbridge Colby has consistently emphasized the importance of prioritizing China in U.S. foreign policy. He argues that China's rise as an economic and military superpower should be the top foreign policy priority for future administrations[2]. This aligns with his broader strategy of focusing on Asia rather than Europe or the Middle East[3].

2. **Redeployment of Military Resources**: Colby advocates for redeploying U.S. military resources from Europe and the Middle East to the Pacific to better deter China. He believes that the current distribution of resources is inadequate given the growing military capabilities of China[5].

3. **Critique of Current Alliances**: Colby suggests that the U.S. should expect its allies to take more responsibility for their own defense. This includes Europe handling its own security challenges, allowing the U.S. to focus on the Indo-Pacific region[1][3].

### Additional Context

– **Trump Administration Influence**: Colby's views have been influential in shaping Trump's foreign policy, particularly through his role in developing the 2018 National Defense Strategy[4][5]. His potential role in a future Trump administration could further solidify these policies.

– **Realist Approach**: Colby's realist approach emphasizes prioritizing American interests and focusing on the most significant threats, which he believes are posed by China rather than Russia or other regional conflicts[4].

### Conclusion

Based on the available evidence, the claim that Elbridge Colby argues for reorienting American interests away from Europe and the Middle East and toward China is **valid**. His public statements and writings consistently emphasize the need to prioritize China in U.S. foreign policy due to its rising military and economic power.

### References

[1] Policy Exchange. (2024). Is Elbridge Colby's Realism Really Realistic?
[2] Dartmouth. (2024). Elbridge Colby Says U.S. Should Focus on China Challenges.
[3] Foreign Policy. (2024). Elbridge Colby Decodes Trump's Foreign-Policy Plans.
[4] UnHerd. (2023). Elbridge Colby: China is more dangerous than Russia.
[5] UnHerd. (2024). Elbridge Colby: the brain behind Trump's foreign policy.

Citations

Claim

Democrats are trying to fight back against cuts to community health centers in Medicaid.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Democrats Fighting Against Cuts to Community Health Centers in Medicaid

The claim that Democrats are trying to fight back against cuts to community health centers in Medicaid can be evaluated based on recent legislative developments and public statements from Democratic leaders.

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Public Statements by Democratic Leaders**: Rep. Frank Pallone, the ranking Democrat on the House Energy & Commerce Committee, has been vocal about the potential devastating impacts of Medicaid cuts on community health centers and hospitals. He warned that the proposed Republican budget could lead to massive cuts in Medicaid, which would cripple these facilities, particularly in rural areas[1].

2. **Legislative Opposition**: Senate Democrats have also expressed strong opposition to Republican plans to cut Medicaid, emphasizing the program's importance for millions of Americans, including those who rely on community health centers. They argue that such cuts would not only harm Medicaid recipients but also force states to make difficult decisions about who to cover, potentially leading to millions losing their health care coverage[4].

3. **Community Impact**: Community health centers are crucial for providing healthcare services to low-income populations. Cuts to Medicaid would likely reduce funding for these centers, impacting their ability to provide essential services. Democrats have highlighted these concerns, emphasizing the need to protect Medicaid and community health centers[3].

### Conclusion

Based on the evidence, the claim that Democrats are fighting against cuts to community health centers in Medicaid is **valid**. Democratic leaders have consistently opposed Republican proposals that could lead to significant reductions in Medicaid funding, which would negatively impact community health centers and other healthcare facilities.

### References

[1] https://newjerseyglobe.com/health/pallone-warns-of-medicaid-cuts-under-republican-budget-plan/
[2] https://spectrumnews1.com/wi/green-bay/politics/2025/02/19/democrats-cry-foul-over-republican-plans-to-cut-medicaid
[3] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/looking-to-slash-medicaid-funding-republicans-consider-cutting-billions-of-dollars
[4] https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/democrats-urge-republicans-against-using-medicaid-to-bankroll-tax-cuts-for-the-rich-at-the-expense-of-working-families-seniors-and-americans-with-disabilities

The additional information regarding President Trump's comments on Ukraine does not pertain to the claim about Medicaid cuts and community health centers.

Citations

Claim

Chuck Schumer tried to say that indiscriminate cuts by Trump are harming Americans' wellbeing and safety.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Chuck Schumer stated that indiscriminate cuts by Trump are harming Americans' wellbeing and safety, we can review Schumer's recent statements and actions regarding budget cuts and their impacts.

## Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Schumer's Remarks on FAA Cuts**: In a Senate floor speech, Schumer criticized Trump's cuts to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), emphasizing that these cuts, particularly the firing of air safety personnel, make air travel less safe for Americans. He argued that reducing FAA staff compromises safety, especially during a period of increased aviation incidents[2].

2. **Funding Freeze Criticism**: Schumer condemned Trump's decision to freeze federal grants and loans, warning that this would lead to severe consequences for middle-class families and essential services. He noted that cuts to funding for police, firefighters, schools, and other critical services would make Americans less safe and less educated[1].

3. **Impact on Head Start Programs**: Schumer also criticized the Trump administration's handling of funding for Head Start programs, which have been left scrambling due to a funding freeze. This situation has forced some providers to lay off staff and shut down services, affecting families dependent on these programs[3].

## Conclusion

Based on the evidence, the claim that Chuck Schumer stated that indiscriminate cuts by Trump are harming Americans' wellbeing and safety is **supported**. Schumer has consistently highlighted the negative impacts of Trump's budget cuts on various sectors, including public safety, education, and social services, emphasizing that these cuts jeopardize Americans' safety and wellbeing.

## References

– [1] Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer's remarks on Trump's funding freeze.
– [2] Schumer's criticism of FAA cuts and their impact on air safety.
– [3] Schumer's comments on the effects of funding freezes on Head Start programs.

Citations

Claim

Russia's goal in attacking Ukraine was to take over all of Ukraine up to and including Kyiv and originally to kill Vladimir Zelensky.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Russia's goal in attacking Ukraine was to take over all of Ukraine, including Kyiv, and to kill Vladimir Zelensky, we need to examine statements from Russian officials, military documents, and analyses regarding Russia's strategic objectives.

## Analysis of the Claim

### 1. **Russian Strategic Objectives**
– **Initial Goals**: Russia's invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, was framed as a "special military operation" aimed at "demilitarizing and denazifying" Ukraine, according to President Putin[5]. This rhetoric suggests a broader goal than merely controlling specific regions like Crimea and Donbas.
– **Targeting Kyiv**: The initial assault included a significant push towards Kyiv, indicating an intent to capture the capital, which is crucial for political control[3][5]. However, the claim that Russia aimed to take over all of Ukraine is not explicitly stated by Russian officials but can be inferred from the scale and scope of the military operations.

### 2. **Targeting Vladimir Zelensky**
– **Neutralizing Ukrainian Leadership**: There is evidence that Russia planned to neutralize Ukraine's political leadership, including Zelensky, as part of its strategy to install a more favorable government[1]. However, specific plans to kill Zelensky are not widely documented in public sources.
– **Russian Propaganda**: Russian propaganda has consistently portrayed Zelensky and the Ukrainian government as illegitimate, which could imply a desire to remove him from power[2][4].

### 3. **Military and Strategic Documents**
– While specific military documents detailing plans to kill Zelensky are not publicly available, the scale of the invasion suggests a comprehensive strategy to control Ukraine's political landscape.
– **Invasion Strategy**: The invasion involved multiple fronts, including a push towards Kyiv, indicating a strategic intent to control key political and military centers[3][5].

### 4. **Analyses and Expert Opinions**
– **RUSI Analysis**: According to the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), Putin's initial plan was to achieve a quick victory, which included neutralizing Ukraine's leadership and installing a more favorable government[1]. This suggests a strategic goal beyond mere territorial control.
– **Genocide Allegations**: Some analyses frame Russia's actions as part of a broader strategy to undermine Ukrainian identity and sovereignty, which could support the claim of a comprehensive takeover[2].

## Conclusion
While Russia's invasion of Ukraine was clearly aimed at exerting significant control over the country, including targeting Kyiv, the specific claim that Russia's goal was to kill Vladimir Zelensky is not explicitly supported by widely available sources. However, the intent to neutralize Ukraine's leadership, including Zelensky, is consistent with Russia's broader strategic objectives. The invasion's scale and scope suggest a comprehensive strategy to control Ukraine politically and militarily, aligning with the goal of taking over significant parts of the country, if not all of it.

In summary, while the claim about killing Zelensky specifically is not well-documented, Russia's actions and rhetoric indicate a significant intent to control Ukraine and undermine its current leadership.

Citations

We believe in transparency and accuracy. That’s why this blog post was verified with CheckForFacts.
Start your fact-checking journey today and help create a smarter, more informed future!