In recent discussions surrounding the conflict in Ukraine, the narrative presented in media outlets can often become muddled with sensational claims and controversial opinions. A recent episode of The Tucker Carlson Show features Bob Amsterdam, who makes alarming assertions about USAID’s involvement in Ukraine, alleging that it is aiding President Zelensky in undermining Christianity through the establishment of so-called “fake churches” and inciting violence. Such statements raise critical questions about their validity and the motivations behind them. In this blog post, we will analyze Amsterdam’s claims, examine the role of USAID in Ukraine, and clarify the complexities of the situation by separating fact from fiction. Join us as we delve into the details and scrutinize these serious allegations.

All information as of 02/20/2025

Fact Check Analysis

Claim

Zelensky is wildly unpopular.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: Zelensky is Wildly Unpopular

The claim that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is "wildly unpopular" can be assessed through recent polling data and surveys conducted in Ukraine. This evaluation will focus on the available evidence regarding Zelensky's popularity and address additional concerns raised about his regime.

### Popularity of Zelensky

Recent surveys and polls consistently show that Zelensky maintains significant public support in Ukraine, despite a decline from the peak levels observed during the early stages of the Russian invasion in 2022.

– **Polling Data**: As of February 2025, a survey by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) found that 57% of Ukrainians trust Zelensky, marking an increase from December 2024 when his trust rating was at 52%[2][3][4]. This level of support is notably higher than the 4% approval rating falsely claimed by U.S. President Donald Trump[1][3][5].

– **Regional Variations**: Support for Zelensky varies by region, with higher trust levels in the West (60%) and Centre (52%) compared to the East (42%) and South (46%), where the war has had a more significant impact[2].

### Allegations of Repression and Corruption

The claim also mentions allegations of violent repression of religious figures and corruption within Zelensky's regime. However, these specific allegations are not supported by the polling data or surveys referenced, which primarily focus on public trust and approval ratings.

– **Religious Repression**: There is no widespread evidence from reputable sources to support the claim that Zelensky's regime violently represses religious figures. Concerns about religious freedoms and state-church relations in Ukraine are complex and multifaceted, involving historical and political factors that are not directly addressed by the polling data.

– **Corruption and Dissent**: While corruption and dissent suppression are significant issues in many countries, including Ukraine, the available polling data does not specifically address these concerns. It is crucial to consider these issues within the broader context of Ukrainian politics and governance.

### Impact of Propaganda and Geopolitical Concerns

The attorney's concerns about propaganda influencing Western views of Ukraine and geopolitical consequences, such as stronger Russia-China ties and negative effects of sanctions, are valid but require a nuanced analysis beyond the scope of Zelensky's popularity.

– **Propaganda and Dissenting Narratives**: The influence of propaganda on public perception is a significant issue, especially in conflict zones. However, this does not directly relate to Zelensky's popularity but rather to how narratives are shaped and disseminated.

– **Geopolitical Consequences**: The geopolitical implications of the war, including alliances and economic sanctions, are complex and multifaceted. These concerns highlight the need for a comprehensive evaluation of the conflict's impact on regional and global stability.

### Conclusion

In conclusion, the claim that Zelensky is "wildly unpopular" is not supported by recent polling data. Zelensky maintains a significant level of public trust, with over 50% of Ukrainians expressing support for him in recent surveys[2][3][4]. While there are valid concerns about governance, religious freedoms, and geopolitical implications, these issues are distinct from the question of Zelensky's popularity. A comprehensive assessment of the situation in Ukraine requires considering multiple factors beyond public opinion polls.

Citations

Claim

There are press gangs to take people to the front.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: "There are press gangs to take people to the front."

The claim about "press gangs" taking people to the front in Ukraine refers to allegations of forced conscription practices. To assess this claim, we must examine reports from credible news sources and human rights organizations regarding conscription practices in Ukraine.

### Current Conscription Practices in Ukraine

– **Legal Framework**: As of April 2024, Ukraine lowered the conscription age from 27 to 25 and narrowed exclusions from the draft[3][5]. This change aims to increase the number of eligible conscripts.
– **Forced Recruitment**: While there are no widespread reports of "press gangs" akin to historical practices, there are instances where men have been stopped by authorities and checked for eligibility for military service. For example, a 30-year-old IT specialist was stopped by traffic police accompanied by Defense Ministry personnel and subsequently sent to a training ground after a medical examination[3].
– **Public Perception and Evasion**: The conscription system is controversial, with many Ukrainians seeking ways to avoid service, including bribery and exploiting loopholes like student status or health issues[3][5].

### Forced Conscription in Occupied Territories

– **Donbas Region**: In the self-declared Donetsk Peoples Republic (DPR) and Luhansk Peoples Republic (LPR), there have been reports of forced conscription into the armed forces of these entities[2]. This practice is considered a violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL)[2].

### Conclusion

While there are no documented cases of traditional "press gangs" in Ukraine, the conscription system is strict, and there are instances of men being forcibly checked for eligibility and sent to service. However, these practices are more aligned with enforcement of existing conscription laws rather than the historical concept of press gangs. The situation in occupied territories like Donbas involves forced conscription, which is a serious concern under international law.

**Evidence Summary**:
– **Ukraine's Conscription System**: The system is controversial and involves strict enforcement, but it does not typically involve "press gangs" as historically understood[3][5].
– **Occupied Territories**: Forced conscription occurs in areas like Donbas, violating IHL[2].
– **Public Concerns**: Many Ukrainians are reluctant to serve, leading to evasion tactics[3][5].

In conclusion, while the claim about "press gangs" may not fully align with historical definitions, there are certainly coercive elements in Ukraine's conscription practices, particularly in occupied territories.

Citations

Claim

The U.S. State Department has engaged in the destruction of religious freedom in Ukraine.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: U.S. State Department's Role in the Destruction of Religious Freedom in Ukraine

The claim that the U.S. State Department has engaged in the destruction of religious freedom in Ukraine requires a thorough examination of available evidence and credible sources. The assertion involves several key points: the U.S. government's alleged support for a regime that represses religious figures, particularly within the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), and the impact of U.S. actions on religious freedoms in Ukraine.

### Evidence and Analysis

1. **U.S. Support for Ukraine and Religious Freedom**:
– The U.S. government has consistently supported Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, especially in the face of Russian aggression. However, there is no direct evidence from U.S. government documents or international human rights organizations that the U.S. State Department has intentionally engaged in the destruction of religious freedom in Ukraine.
– The U.S. Department of State's reports on international religious freedom highlight concerns about religious freedom violations, particularly in Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine, but do not indicate U.S. involvement in such violations[1][3].

2. **Ukrainian Government Actions and Religious Freedom**:
– President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's government has taken steps to address perceived ties between some religious organizations and the Russian Federation. For example, a decree aimed to prohibit religious organizations affiliated with Russia from operating in Ukraine, citing concerns about national security and collaboration with the invader[1].
– The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) has conducted searches of UOC sites, uncovering evidence of alleged collaboration with Russia. These actions have been controversial, with some viewing them as necessary security measures and others as infringements on religious freedom[1].

3. **Impact of U.S. Funding and Support**:
– There is no clear evidence that U.S. funding has specifically targeted or undermined religious freedoms in Ukraine. U.S. support for Ukraine is primarily aimed at bolstering its defense capabilities against Russian aggression and promoting democratic values[2].
– The claim that U.S. funding supports a state-controlled church at the expense of religious freedoms lacks concrete evidence. The U.S. has generally advocated for religious tolerance and freedom in its international relations[1][3].

4. **Propaganda and Dissent**:
– The attorney's concern about propaganda influencing Western views of Ukraine and silencing dissenting narratives is valid, as media narratives can significantly impact public perception. However, this does not directly relate to U.S. actions on religious freedom[1].

5. **Geopolitical Consequences**:
– The geopolitical implications of the war, including stronger ties between Russia and China and the effects of sanctions on American interests, are significant. However, these issues are broader than the specific claim about religious freedom[1][3].

### Conclusion

Based on available evidence, the claim that the U.S. State Department has engaged in the destruction of religious freedom in Ukraine is not supported by credible sources. While there are concerns about religious freedom in Ukraine, particularly regarding actions taken by the Ukrainian government against religious organizations perceived as linked to Russia, these actions are not attributed to U.S. policy or funding. The U.S. has generally promoted religious freedom and democratic values in its international relations.

**Recommendations for Further Investigation**:
– Review U.S. government documents and statements on Ukraine to assess any direct or indirect impact on religious freedom.
– Consult reports from international human rights organizations to evaluate the situation on the ground.
– Analyze the geopolitical context and how it influences religious freedom in Ukraine.

Citations

Claim

Members of the Ukrainian parliament have discussed the issue of religious cleansing in Ukraine.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that members of the Ukrainian parliament have discussed the issue of religious cleansing in Ukraine, we need to examine recent legislative actions and statements related to religious organizations, particularly those linked to Russia.

## Legislative Actions and Discussions

1. **Legislative Background**: On August 20, 2024, the Ukrainian parliament passed a bill targeting religious organizations with alleged ties to Russia, including the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), which is the largest Christian church in Ukraine[2][3]. This move has been justified by Ukrainian authorities on national security grounds due to perceived ties with Russia[2].

2. **Parliamentary Statements**: Independent Ukrainian MP Roman Lozynskyi described the vote as part of an effort to "cleanse" Ukraine from the "Kremlin’s agent network," which he believes has been hiding behind religious organizations[3]. This language suggests that there is indeed a discussion about removing or restricting religious groups seen as linked to Russia, which could be interpreted as a form of religious cleansing.

3. **International Concerns**: The European Union has expressed concerns about the compatibility of this law with fundamental human rights, particularly the right to religious freedom guaranteed by Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union[2]. This indicates that the issue is being discussed not only within Ukraine but also at an international level.

## Claims of Religious Repression

The American attorney representing the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has highlighted concerns about religious repression and the violent treatment of religious figures under President Zelensky's regime[5]. While these claims are part of a broader critique that includes corruption and suppressed dissent, they specifically focus on the impact of the new law on religious freedoms.

## Conclusion

The claim that members of the Ukrainian parliament have discussed the issue of religious cleansing in Ukraine is supported by recent legislative actions and statements. The parliament's passage of a bill targeting religious organizations linked to Russia, coupled with language used by MPs like Roman Lozynskyi, indicates that there is a discussion about cleansing Ukraine from perceived Russian influence, which includes religious groups. However, the characterization of this as "religious cleansing" might be more subjective and depends on how one interprets the motivations and impacts of these actions.

## Evidence and Sources

– **Legislative Action**: The Ukrainian parliament's bill targeting religious organizations with ties to Russia[2][3].
– **Parliamentary Statements**: MP Roman Lozynskyi's comments on cleansing Ukraine from Kremlin influence[3].
– **International Concerns**: EU concerns about human rights and religious freedom[2].
– **Claims of Repression**: Statements by an American attorney representing the Ukrainian Orthodox Church[5].

Citations

Claim

There is a troubling trend from the US State Department to change the culture of Slavic countries.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: U.S. State Department's Influence on Slavic Cultures

The claim that the U.S. State Department is involved in a troubling trend to change the culture of Slavic countries requires a thorough examination of U.S. foreign policy initiatives and their impact on cultural or societal changes in these regions. This analysis will focus on available evidence regarding U.S. involvement in cultural or societal changes in Ukraine and other Slavic countries.

### U.S. Foreign Policy Initiatives

1. **Cultural and Societal Programs**: The U.S. government, through various agencies like the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department, supports programs aimed at promoting democracy, human rights, and economic development in foreign countries. However, these programs are generally designed to support local initiatives rather than impose cultural changes.

2. **Ukraine-Specific Initiatives**: In the context of Ukraine, U.S. foreign policy has focused on supporting Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, particularly in the face of Russian aggression. This includes economic aid, military assistance, and support for democratic institutions. While these efforts can influence political and economic structures, they are not typically aimed at altering cultural identities.

3. **Religious Freedom Concerns**: The attorney's mention of U.S. funding for a state-controlled church in Ukraine raises concerns about religious freedom. However, U.S. policy generally supports religious freedom worldwide, and any support for specific religious institutions would likely be intended to promote stability and religious coexistence rather than cultural change.

### Analysis of Available Evidence

– **Lack of Direct Evidence**: There is no direct evidence from reliable sources indicating that the U.S. State Department is actively working to change the culture of Slavic countries. U.S. foreign policy initiatives are more focused on promoting democracy, stability, and economic development.

– **Cultural Influence vs. Cultural Change**: While U.S. cultural influence can be significant globally, this does not equate to a deliberate policy of cultural change. Cultural exchange programs and educational initiatives are common but are generally aimed at fostering mutual understanding rather than altering cultural identities.

– **Geopolitical Context**: The geopolitical situation in Ukraine, including the ongoing conflict with Russia, has led to significant international involvement. However, this involvement is primarily focused on supporting Ukraine's sovereignty and stability rather than altering its cultural fabric.

### Conclusion

Based on available evidence and analysis, there is no substantial support for the claim that the U.S. State Department is engaged in a troubling trend to change the culture of Slavic countries. U.S. foreign policy initiatives in regions like Ukraine are primarily aimed at supporting political stability, economic development, and human rights, rather than cultural transformation. While cultural exchange and influence are inevitable aspects of international relations, they do not constitute a deliberate policy of cultural change.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

1. **Review of U.S. Foreign Policy Documents**: A detailed review of official U.S. foreign policy documents and statements regarding Slavic countries could provide insight into any cultural or societal initiatives.

2. **Analysis of Funding and Aid Programs**: Investigating the specifics of U.S. funding for cultural or religious programs in Slavic countries could help clarify whether these programs are intended to support cultural change.

3. **Consultation with Experts**: Engaging with experts in international relations, cultural studies, and Slavic studies could offer additional perspectives on the nature and impact of U.S. involvement in these regions.

Citations

Claim

The United States government was involved in the establishment of a new Ukrainian church.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: U.S. Government Involvement in Establishing a New Ukrainian Church

The claim that the United States government was involved in the establishment of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) has been a subject of debate. To assess this claim, we need to examine diplomatic records, church documents, and statements from relevant parties.

### Background on the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU)

The OCU was established in December 2018, following a unification council that brought together several Ukrainian Orthodox churches. This move was a significant step towards autocephaly, or self-governance, for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which had previously been under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church.

### U.S. Government Position

The U.S. government has publicly supported Ukraine's efforts towards autocephaly and religious freedom. In September 2018, the U.S. State Department issued a statement expressing support for the ability of Ukraine's Orthodox leaders to pursue autocephaly according to their beliefs[1]. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also congratulated Metropolitan Epifaniy on his election as the head of the OCU, emphasizing U.S. support for religious freedom and the right to worship without external interference[3].

### Evidence of U.S. Involvement

While there is evidence of U.S. diplomatic engagement with Ukrainian church leaders, such as meetings between U.S. officials and Patriarch Filaret in September 2018[1], there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that the U.S. government orchestrated the creation of the OCU. The U.S. support seems more aligned with promoting religious freedom and countering Russian influence in Ukraine rather than directly establishing the church[1][3].

### Claims of U.S. Support for a State-Controlled Church

The claim that the U.S. government has supported a state-controlled church at the expense of religious freedoms in Ukraine is not widely supported by available evidence. However, there are concerns about the Ukrainian government's actions towards religious institutions, particularly those affiliated with Russia[1]. The U.S. has generally advocated for religious freedom and opposed external interference in religious matters[3].

### Conclusion

In conclusion, while the U.S. government has expressed support for Ukraine's religious freedom and autocephaly, there is no substantial evidence to prove that it directly established the OCU. The U.S. involvement appears to be more about promoting democratic values and countering Russian influence rather than creating a new church. Claims about supporting a state-controlled church are not well-documented and require further investigation.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

1. **Diplomatic Records**: Access to detailed diplomatic records between U.S. officials and Ukrainian church leaders could provide clearer insights into the nature of their interactions.
2. **Church Documents**: Reviewing internal documents from the OCU and other Ukrainian Orthodox churches might reveal more about their interactions with foreign governments.
3. **Independent Assessments**: Conducting independent assessments of religious freedom in Ukraine, including the treatment of religious figures by the government, would help clarify the situation.

Citations

Claim

The casualties in Ukraine are enormous, and the corruption is enormous.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that "the casualties in Ukraine are enormous, and the corruption is enormous," we need to examine both aspects separately using reliable sources.

## 1. Casualties in Ukraine

The claim regarding enormous casualties in Ukraine is supported by various reports. As of January 2025, estimates suggest that Ukraine has experienced approximately 400,000 people killed or injured, with 35,000 missing[1][3]. This figure underscores the significant human cost of the ongoing conflict. Additionally, Russia has also suffered substantial casualties, with over 700,000 killed or injured and 448,000 missing[3]. These numbers highlight the devastating impact of the war on both countries.

## 2. Corruption in Ukraine

Regarding corruption, Ukraine has historically struggled with this issue, which has been exacerbated by the ongoing war. Before the conflict, corruption was a significant challenge, and the war has further complicated efforts to combat it[2][4]. The influx of foreign aid and the focus on military efforts have created an environment where corruption risks are heightened[2]. Recent polls indicate that Ukrainians view corruption as a major domestic issue, even during the war[4]. This perception is supported by studies showing widespread corruption at the local level, with many citizens engaging in corrupt practices to resolve everyday issues[4].

## Conclusion

In conclusion, the claim that casualties in Ukraine are enormous is supported by conflict reports and casualty estimates. Similarly, the assertion that corruption is enormous is validated by analyses from anti-corruption watchdogs and public perceptions. Both aspects of the claim are substantiated by reliable sources, indicating significant challenges for Ukraine in terms of human losses and governance issues.

### Evidence Summary:

– **Casualties:** Ukraine has experienced approximately 400,000 people killed or injured, with significant numbers missing[1][3].
– **Corruption:** Corruption remains a major issue in Ukraine, exacerbated by the war and the influx of foreign aid[2][4]. Public perception and studies highlight its prevalence[4].

Citations

Claim

There is a law (38 94) to destroy the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which has not been seen in Europe since World War II against the Jews.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that there is a law (Law No. 3894-IX) aimed at destroying the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), similar to actions against Jews in Europe during World War II, we need to examine the specifics of the law and its implications.

## Overview of Law No. 3894-IX

Law No. 3894-IX, adopted by the Ukrainian parliament on August 20, 2024, targets religious organizations linked to the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and specifically aims to ban the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) due to its affiliation with the ROC[1][2][3]. The law is part of Ukraine's response to Russia's ongoing aggression and is based on the premise that the ROC supports and justifies Russia's actions[1][3].

## Key Provisions of the Law

1. **Ban on ROC and Affiliated Organizations**: The law prohibits the activity of the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine and any religious organizations affiliated with it, including the UOC[1][3].
2. **Criteria for Banning**: The law allows for the banning of religious organizations if their officials are convicted of crimes such as national security offenses, incitement of religious hatred, or support for Russian aggression[1].
3. **"Russian World" Ideology**: It also prohibits the dissemination of the "Russian world" ideology, which is seen as promoting Russian control over Ukraine[1][3].

## Implications for Religious Freedom

Critics argue that the law does not comply with international standards of freedom of religion or belief. It allows for the arbitrary monitoring and restriction of religious communities based on broad and vague criteria[1][5]. Human Rights Watch has expressed concerns that the law could have far-reaching consequences for religious freedom in Ukraine[5].

## Comparison to WWII Actions Against Jews

The claim that this law is similar to actions against Jews in Europe during World War II is a significant exaggeration. While both involve state actions against specific groups, the historical context and nature of the actions are fundamentally different. The Holocaust was a systematic, state-sponsored genocide aimed at the extermination of Jews and other minority groups. In contrast, Law No. 3894-IX is a response to perceived national security threats and ideological alignment with an aggressor state, rather than an intent to exterminate or systematically persecute a religious group based on their identity alone[1][4].

## Conclusion

While Law No. 3894-IX does pose significant challenges to religious freedom and targets the UOC due to its affiliation with the ROC, it is not comparable to the systematic persecution and genocide experienced by Jews during World War II. The law's focus is on addressing perceived national security concerns and ideological ties to Russia, rather than ethnic or religious persecution per se. However, it raises important concerns about religious freedom and the balance between national security and human rights[1][5].

Citations

Claim

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) has been subject to confiscation of 1,500 churches.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Confiscation of 1,500 Churches from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC)

The claim that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) has had 1,500 churches confiscated requires a thorough examination of available evidence and reports from both the UOC and government sources.

### Available Evidence

1. **Number of Churches Seized**: According to Sergey Melnikov, Chairman of the Russian Association for Protection of Religious Freedom, almost 1,300 churches of the canonical UOC have been forcibly seized and handed over to schismatics since 2014[1]. This figure includes about 600 parishes that faced similar issues over the past two years.

2. **Violence and Intimidation**: Reports indicate that these seizures have often been violent, with incidents involving tear gas and physical confrontations[3]. The involvement of radical groups and security forces has been noted in some cases[5].

3. **Legislative Actions**: Ukraine has pursued a series of discriminatory laws and draft laws targeting the UOC, aiming to restrict its operations and property rights[2][3]. These actions have been criticized by human rights organizations for undermining religious freedom[3][4].

### Conclusion

While there is substantial evidence that the UOC has faced significant confiscation and pressure, with nearly 1,300 churches seized since 2014, the specific claim of 1,500 churches being confiscated is not directly supported by the available data. The closest figure provided by reliable sources is approximately 1,300 churches[1]. Therefore, the claim of 1,500 churches being confiscated appears to be an overstatement based on current evidence.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

– **Church Records**: Accessing detailed records from the UOC could provide more precise numbers and specific cases of church seizures.
– **Government Reports**: Official reports from Ukrainian authorities might offer additional insights into the legal and administrative processes involved in these seizures.
– **International Observations**: Reports from international human rights organizations could further validate the extent of religious freedom violations in Ukraine.

In summary, while the UOC has faced extensive confiscation and pressure, the claim of 1,500 churches being confiscated lacks direct evidence to support it fully.

Citations

Claim

There is a massive right wing movement in Ukraine that has tremendous influence.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Influence of Right-Wing Movements in Ukraine

The claim that there is a massive right-wing movement in Ukraine with tremendous influence requires a nuanced evaluation based on available evidence and research.

### Overview of Right-Wing Movements in Ukraine

Ukraine has experienced a rise in right-wing movements, particularly since the Euromaidan protests in 2013-2014. Key organizations include **Right Sector** and **Svoboda (Freedom) Party**.

– **Right Sector** is a coalition of right-wing to far-right nationalist groups that played a significant role in the Euromaidan protests and later in the conflict in Donbas[1]. Despite its visibility, Right Sector's electoral performance has been limited, and it has not secured significant parliamentary representation since 2014[1].

– **Svoboda Party** is considered the most developed political arm of Ukraine's far right. It achieved its greatest electoral success in 2012, gaining 10.44% of the vote, but its popularity has since declined significantly[5].

### Influence and Impact

While these movements have been influential in shaping certain aspects of Ukrainian politics and society, their overall impact is more nuanced:

– **Political Influence**: Despite their visibility, far-right groups have not achieved substantial electoral success in recent years. Svoboda and Right Sector have struggled to maintain significant public support, with Svoboda receiving only 1.16% in the 2014 parliamentary elections[5].

– **Social and Paramilitary Activities**: Far-right groups have been involved in paramilitary activities and have contributed to social tensions, particularly against minority groups[2]. However, their influence is often exaggerated by external narratives, particularly in Russian media[1][5].

– **Integration into Mainstream Politics**: Some far-right paramilitary groups have been integrated into Ukraine's armed forces, which has contributed to their legitimacy and influence within certain segments of society[2].

### Conclusion

In conclusion, while right-wing movements in Ukraine have gained visibility and influence, particularly during times of conflict, their overall impact on the political landscape is not as massive as claimed. Their electoral performance has been limited, and their influence is often amplified by external factors such as media coverage and geopolitical tensions. The claim of a "massive" right-wing movement with "tremendous influence" may be overstated when considering their actual political power and public support.

**Evidence and References:**

– The electoral performance of far-right groups like Svoboda and Right Sector has been weak in recent elections[5].
– The integration of some far-right groups into Ukraine's armed forces has increased their legitimacy but does not equate to massive political influence[2].
– External narratives, particularly from Russian media, have exaggerated the role of far-right movements in Ukraine[1][5].

Citations

Claim

The Ukrainian government under Zelensky has opened a criminal investigation against those who criticize it.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Ukrainian Government Under Zelensky Opens Criminal Investigations Against Critics

The claim that the Ukrainian government under President Volodymyr Zelensky has opened criminal investigations against those who criticize it requires careful examination of available evidence and reliable sources.

### Evidence of Politically Motivated Investigations

1. **Criminal Case Against Top Officials**: There have been reports of a criminal case being ordered against top government officials, including President Zelenskyy, over allegations of treason related to the appointment of Russian intelligence agents to Ukraine's security service. However, this does not directly indicate that the investigations are targeted at critics of the government[1].

2. **Corruption Investigations**: Ukraine has been actively pursuing corruption investigations, which have led to resignations and dismissals across the government. These efforts are part of broader anti-corruption reforms initiated by Zelensky's administration[5].

3. **Judicial Reform Controversies**: There have been controversies surrounding judicial reform efforts, with some officials facing allegations of misconduct. For instance, Andriy Smyrnov, a deputy chief of staff to Zelensky, was embroiled in a criminal probe related to a judge's escape[3].

### Silencing Dissent and Repression

While there are concerns about the suppression of dissent and religious freedoms, as highlighted by the American attorney representing the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, these claims need to be verified through multiple sources. The attorney's assertions about violent repression of religious figures and suppression of dissent are not widely documented in mainstream news or academic sources.

### Conclusion

Based on available evidence, there is no clear indication that the Ukrainian government under Zelensky systematically opens criminal investigations specifically against critics of the government. However, there are ongoing corruption investigations and controversies surrounding judicial reforms, which can be perceived as politically motivated. The claim about silencing dissent and religious repression requires further verification from diverse and reliable sources.

### Recommendations for Further Research

– **Legal Documents**: Review legal documents related to specific cases to assess whether investigations are politically motivated.
– **News Reports**: Analyze news reports from diverse sources to identify patterns of suppression or politically motivated investigations.
– **Academic Studies**: Consult academic studies on Ukraine's political climate and legal system to understand the broader context of governance and dissent.

In summary, while there are concerns about corruption and judicial controversies in Ukraine, the specific claim about targeting critics with criminal investigations lacks robust evidence. Further research is necessary to fully evaluate these assertions.

Citations

Claim

Zelensky has destroyed civil society and eliminated opposition in Ukraine.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Zelensky Has Destroyed Civil Society and Eliminated Opposition in Ukraine

To assess the validity of the claim that President Zelensky has destroyed civil society and eliminated opposition in Ukraine, we need to examine recent developments in Ukrainian politics, civil society, and opposition dynamics.

### Civil Society in Ukraine

1. **Development and Role of Civil Society**: Ukrainian civil society has been a driving force behind the country's democratic reforms, especially since the Euromaidan protests. There are over 20,000 active civil society organizations (CSOs) involved in various sectors, including security reform[1]. Despite historical mistrust of government institutions, civil society has evolved to play a more constructive role, engaging in dialogue and providing expertise to support government reforms[1].

2. **Collaboration and Trust**: The relationship between civil society and the government has improved, with increased trust in state institutions. This shift is partly due to a more collaborative approach by civil society, which now often seeks solutions through government channels rather than solely criticizing them[1]. However, concerns remain about the impact of international funding on civil service talent retention[1].

3. **Restrictions and Challenges**: While civil society remains vibrant, there are challenges related to media freedom and the use of wartime restrictions to limit dissenting voices[1]. The need for a more pluralistic media landscape post-war is acknowledged to ensure civil society's effective functioning[1].

### Political Opposition in Ukraine

1. **Current State of Opposition**: Ukraine's political opposition has diminished since the full-scale Russian invasion, with elections suspended and martial law in place[5]. However, opposition members still exert influence on public and international positions[5].

2. **Zelensky's Popularity and Control**: President Zelensky's popularity surged during the war, and his party maintains a significant majority in parliament[2][5]. Despite this, civil society acts as a check on his authority[5].

3. **Legal and Political Restrictions**: The largest opposition party was banned after the invasion, and while opposition voices are not entirely silenced, they face significant challenges in operating effectively under martial law[5].

### Conclusion

The claim that Zelensky has destroyed civil society and eliminated opposition in Ukraine is not entirely accurate. While there are challenges and restrictions, particularly during wartime, civil society remains active and influential. The opposition, though diminished, continues to play a role in Ukrainian politics. However, concerns about media freedom, government control, and the impact of international support on civil service dynamics are valid and warrant ongoing scrutiny.

### Evidence Summary

– **Civil Society**: Active with over 20,000 CSOs, increasingly collaborative with the government, but faces challenges like media restrictions[1].
– **Political Opposition**: Diminished but not eliminated; opposition voices still exist, though under significant constraints[5].
– **Government Control**: Zelensky's popularity and control are strong, but civil society acts as a check on his authority[2][5].

Overall, while there are legitimate concerns about the state of civil society and opposition in Ukraine, the claim of complete destruction or elimination is overstated.

Citations

Claim

The sanctions imposed by the U.S. are empowering corrupt regimes worldwide.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: U.S. Sanctions Empowering Corrupt Regimes Worldwide

The claim that U.S. sanctions are empowering corrupt regimes worldwide is complex and requires a nuanced analysis. Sanctions can have varied effects depending on their design, implementation, and the specific context in which they are applied.

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Unintended Consequences of Sanctions**: Research suggests that sanctions can sometimes exacerbate corruption and strengthen authoritarian regimes. For instance, comprehensive sanctions can lead to the expansion of the shadow economy, fostering corruption as elites and criminal networks exploit opportunities to circumvent restrictions[3]. This phenomenon has been observed in countries like Iraq and Yugoslavia under UN sanctions[3].

2. **Sanctions Evasion and Corruption**: Sanctions can create incentives for corruption as targeted regimes devise new schemes to evade restrictions. This can empower certain elites and strengthen ties between the state and criminal networks, as seen in cases like Iran and Venezuela[3].

### Evidence Against the Claim

1. **Targeted Sanctions and Corruption**: The U.S. has successfully used targeted sanctions to combat corruption, particularly through the Global Magnitsky Act. These sanctions are designed to isolate corrupt individuals and entities, preventing them from using their ill-gotten gains and deterring others from engaging in similar activities[1]. Examples include positive impacts in Paraguay and Guatemala[1].

2. **International Cooperation**: The U.S. and its partners have seen benefits from coordinating sanctions efforts. This cooperation can enhance the effectiveness of sanctions in targeting corruption and promoting accountability[1].

### Conclusion

While there is evidence that sanctions can sometimes empower corrupt regimes by creating unintended consequences such as increased corruption and shadow economies, targeted sanctions, especially those focused on corruption, have shown positive results in specific contexts. The effectiveness of sanctions depends on their design, implementation, and the level of international cooperation. Therefore, the claim is partially valid but requires a nuanced understanding of the complex impacts of sanctions.

### Recommendations for Future Analysis

– **Economic Analyses**: Conduct detailed economic analyses of the impacts of sanctions on various countries to better understand their effects on corruption and governance.
– **Case Studies**: Examine specific case studies where sanctions have been used to combat corruption, such as those under the Global Magnitsky Act.
– **International Cooperation**: Investigate how international cooperation can enhance the effectiveness of sanctions in targeting corruption without empowering authoritarian regimes.

Citations

Claim

Sanctions have consolidated Putin's power rather than diminished it.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Sanctions Have Consolidated Putin's Power

The claim that sanctions have consolidated Putin's power rather than diminished it can be evaluated through expert commentary and historical analyses. Here's a detailed examination of this assertion:

### Background on Sanctions Against Russia

Sanctions against Russia were significantly intensified following the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. These sanctions were designed to weaken Putin's ability to project power and to punish Russia for its aggression[2][3]. However, the effectiveness of these sanctions in achieving their intended goals is a subject of debate.

### Impact of Sanctions on Putin's Power

1. **Consolidation of Power**: The initiation of the conflict with Ukraine further solidified Putin's regime of personal rule, as it allowed him to rally society under wartime conditions and impose stricter penalties for dissent[4]. While sanctions have not led to major divisions within the Russian elite, they have not significantly undermined Putin's control either[1].

2. **Economic Effects**: Sanctions have had a significant impact on Russia's economy, reducing its oil and gas revenues, complicating external economic relations, and limiting access to high-tech components[2][3]. However, Russia has managed to stabilize its economy through various measures, such as strict capital controls and increased defense spending[1][3].

3. **Political Stability**: Despite economic challenges, Putin's regime remains stable due to its authoritarian nature and control over media and dissent[4]. The sanctions have not led to widespread public discontent or elite defections that could threaten Putin's position[1].

4. **International Relations**: Sanctions have not deterred Russia from continuing its aggression in Ukraine. Instead, they have contributed to Russia seeking closer ties with other nations, such as China, potentially strengthening its geopolitical position in some respects[5].

### Conclusion

The claim that sanctions have consolidated Putin's power rather than diminished it is partially supported by the evidence. While sanctions have not weakened Putin's grip on power, they have also not achieved their primary goal of ending Russia's aggression in Ukraine. Putin's regime has used the sanctions as a pretext to further consolidate power domestically and seek alliances internationally. However, the economic costs imposed by sanctions are significant and may have long-term implications for Russia's economic stability and global influence[3][5].

In summary, sanctions have not directly diminished Putin's power but have contributed to a complex geopolitical landscape where Russia's economic and political strategies are evolving in response to international pressure.

Citations

Claim

U.S. involvement in the Ukraine conflict is driven by political motives rather than humanitarian ones.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that U.S. involvement in the Ukraine conflict is driven by political motives rather than humanitarian ones, it is essential to examine historical connections between U.S. political events and foreign policy decisions, particularly in the context of Ukraine.

## Historical Context and U.S. Foreign Policy

1. **Obama Administration**: Initially, the U.S. response to Russian aggression in Ukraine was limited under President Barack Obama, focusing on economic sanctions without lethal military aid[1]. This approach suggests a cautious stance, possibly influenced by broader geopolitical considerations rather than purely humanitarian concerns.

2. **Trump Administration**: The Trump administration's policy on Ukraine was marked by incoherence and internal contradictions. While officially condemning Russian aggression and providing military aid, Trump's personal interests and electoral strategies often influenced policy decisions, such as linking aid to investigations into his political rivals[2]. This indicates that political motives played a significant role in shaping U.S. policy towards Ukraine during this period.

3. **Biden Administration**: Under President Joe Biden, U.S. support for Ukraine has become a cornerstone of his foreign policy, emphasizing transatlantic solidarity and countering Russian aggression[1]. However, this support is also intertwined with domestic political considerations, such as maintaining a strong presidential image and addressing Republican demands for border security[1]. These factors suggest that political motives continue to influence U.S. involvement in Ukraine.

## Strategic Interests and Political Motives

– **Strategic Interests**: The U.S. has strategic interests in Ukraine, including deterring Russian expansion and maintaining European security[3]. These interests are often framed as a response to Russian aggression, which could threaten NATO allies and undermine international order[3]. While these interests are presented as security-related, they also serve political purposes by reinforcing U.S. leadership in Europe and bolstering alliances.

– **Political Motives**: The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has become a political tool in U.S. domestic politics. Support for Ukraine is used to demonstrate U.S. commitment to international security and to counterbalance perceptions of declining global influence[1]. Additionally, the conflict has been tied to other political issues, such as border security and electoral strategies[1].

## Humanitarian Concerns vs. Political Motives

While humanitarian concerns, such as protecting civilians and supporting refugees, are certainly part of the U.S. response to the Ukraine conflict, the evidence suggests that political motives play a significant role in shaping U.S. policy. The intertwining of strategic interests, domestic political considerations, and the use of Ukraine as a geopolitical tool indicate that political factors are a primary driver of U.S. involvement.

## Conclusion

The claim that U.S. involvement in the Ukraine conflict is driven by political motives rather than humanitarian ones is supported by historical and contemporary evidence. While humanitarian concerns are present, they are often overshadowed by strategic and political considerations that shape U.S. foreign policy decisions regarding Ukraine[1][2][3]. The influence of domestic politics, electoral strategies, and geopolitical interests underscores the political nature of U.S. engagement in the conflict.

Citations

Claim

There are very few congressmen who would meet us.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that "there are very few congressmen who would meet us," particularly in the context of an American attorney representing the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, we need to consider several factors:

1. **Accessibility of Congressmen to Constituents and Lobbyists:**
– Generally, U.S. congressmen are expected to be accessible to their constituents, but their availability can vary based on their schedules, priorities, and the nature of the request. Lobbyists and special interest groups often have more access due to their professional connections and the resources they can offer.
– There is no specific data or study cited in the search results regarding the accessibility of congressmen to representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church or similar groups.

2. **Context of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church's Situation:**
– The situation in Ukraine involving the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) is complex, with reports of persecution and legal actions against clergy members[1][3]. This context might influence how U.S. congressmen perceive or prioritize meetings with representatives of the church.
– The attorney's concerns about religious freedoms and geopolitical implications could be seen as sensitive or controversial, potentially affecting the willingness of some congressmen to engage.

3. **Propaganda and Silenced Narratives:**
– The attorney mentions propaganda affecting Western views of Ukraine, which could impact how congressmen perceive the situation and decide whether to meet with representatives of the church.
– There is no direct evidence in the search results about how this propaganda affects congressmen's willingness to meet with specific groups.

4. **U.S. Government Support for Ukraine:**
– The U.S. government has provided significant support to Ukraine during the ongoing conflict, which might influence how congressmen view meetings related to Ukrainian issues.
– The claim that the U.S. government supports a state-controlled church at the expense of religious freedoms is a point of contention and could affect how congressmen approach meetings on this topic.

**Conclusion:**
Without specific data or studies on the accessibility of congressmen to representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, it is difficult to definitively validate the claim. However, the complex geopolitical context and potential controversy surrounding the church's situation in Ukraine could indeed limit the willingness of some congressmen to engage. The influence of propaganda and the U.S. government's stance on Ukraine might further complicate these dynamics.

To fully assess the claim, more detailed information about the specific congressmen involved and their reasons for meeting or not meeting with the attorney would be necessary. Additionally, understanding the broader political climate and how it affects interactions between congressmen and lobbyists or representatives of foreign religious groups would provide valuable context.

Citations

Claim

Zelensky's government has taken control of the church away from our church and handed it to the nationalist church.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Zelensky's government has taken control of the church away from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) and handed it to the nationalist church, we need to examine recent government actions and policies in Ukraine regarding church governance and control.

## Background on Church Governance in Ukraine

1. **Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) and Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC):**
– The Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) was granted autocephaly (independence) by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in 2019, making it independent from the Moscow Patriarchate[1][3].
– The Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), previously linked to the Moscow Patriarchate, announced its separation from Moscow in May 2022 but is still viewed by many Ukrainians as being influenced by Russia[1][3].

2. **Government Actions:**
– In August 2024, President Zelensky signed a law banning religious organizations linked to the Russian Orthodox Church from operating in Ukraine. This includes the UOC, which is perceived as still having ties to Moscow despite its claims of independence[1][3].
– The law requires religious communities to break ties with Russian-linked entities within nine months[1].

3. **Seizure of Churches and Persecution Claims:**
– There have been reports of church seizures and pressure on UOC monasteries and clergy by Ukrainian authorities. The UOC claims it faces discrimination and persecution, with allegations of hate speech and violence against its members[2][4].
– However, the Ukrainian government argues that these actions are necessary to ensure national security and sovereignty, especially given the ongoing conflict with Russia[1][3].

4. **Public Perception and Support:**
– A significant portion of Ukrainians support the ban on the Moscow-linked church, with polls indicating that many distrust the UOC due to perceived ties with Russia[1][3].

## Evaluation of the Claim

The claim that Zelensky's government has taken control of the church away from the UOC and handed it to the nationalist church (OCU) is partially supported by the facts:

– **Government Actions:** The Ukrainian government has indeed taken steps to limit the influence of the UOC, which it perceives as linked to Russia, and has promoted the OCU as an independent entity[1][3].
– **Perception of Control:** While the government has not directly "handed" control to the OCU, its policies have created an environment where the OCU is favored over the UOC, leading to a shift in influence[1][3].
– **Persecution Claims:** There are allegations of persecution and discrimination against the UOC, which could be seen as part of a broader effort to diminish its influence[2][4].

However, the narrative of "violent repression" and "corruption" is more nuanced and requires careful consideration of multiple perspectives. The situation is complex, involving political, religious, and national security dimensions.

## Conclusion

The claim has some basis in fact, as the Ukrainian government has taken steps to reduce the influence of the UOC and promote the OCU. However, the characterization of these actions as "violent repression" and the implication of direct control being handed to the OCU may not fully capture the complexity of the situation. The issue remains highly politicized and sensitive, with differing interpretations depending on one's perspective on the conflict and religious governance in Ukraine.

Citations

Claim

Ukraine is a huge producer of fertilizer and basic exports.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Fact-Checking the Claim: Ukraine as a Huge Producer of Fertilizer and Basic Exports

The claim that Ukraine is a huge producer of fertilizer and basic exports can be evaluated by examining Ukraine's role in global fertilizer and food supply markets.

### Ukraine's Role in Fertilizer Production

– **Nitrogen Fertilizer Production**: In 2023, Ukraine increased its nitrogen fertilizer production by 81% compared to 2022, reaching 2,050,000 tons. However, this is significantly lower than the 5.2 million tons produced in 2021[1]. This indicates that while Ukraine is a notable producer of nitrogen fertilizers, its production levels have been impacted by the ongoing conflict.

– **Urea Fertilizer Production**: Historically, Ukraine's urea fertilizer production has declined since 2014, with a notable decrease from 2,127,200 metric tons in 2015 to 840,237 metric tons in 2019[3]. This trend suggests that Ukraine's urea production, while significant, has faced challenges.

### Ukraine's Contribution to Global Markets

– **Agricultural Commodities**: Ukraine and Russia are crucial players in global agricultural markets, particularly for grains like wheat, barley, and maize. Before the war, they accounted for about 8.8% of global output of these crops[2]. Ukraine's contribution to global food markets is substantial, but its role in fertilizer exports is less prominent compared to Russia, which is a top exporter of nitrogen fertilizers[2].

– **Fertilizer Exports**: While Ukraine is a significant producer of fertilizers, its export role is not as dominant as Russia's. The war in Ukraine has disrupted global fertilizer markets, leading to increased prices and supply chain issues[4].

### Conclusion

Ukraine is a notable producer of fertilizers, particularly nitrogen-based ones, but its production levels have been affected by the ongoing conflict. While Ukraine plays a significant role in global agricultural markets, its position as a major fertilizer exporter is not as strong as that of Russia. Therefore, the claim that Ukraine is a huge producer of fertilizer and basic exports is partially accurate but requires context regarding the impact of recent events on its production and export capabilities.

**Evidence Summary:**

– **Fertilizer Production**: Ukraine increased nitrogen fertilizer production in 2023 but remains below pre-war levels[1].
– **Global Market Role**: Ukraine is important in agricultural markets but less so in fertilizer exports compared to Russia[2][4].
– **Historical Trends**: Decline in urea production since 2014[3].

Citations

Claim

The US government established a fake state church in a foreign country, which is unconstitutional.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that the U.S. government established a fake state church in a foreign country, which is unconstitutional, we need to consider several aspects:

1. **Legal Framework**: The U.S. Constitution's First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a state church within the United States. However, this clause primarily applies to domestic policy and does not directly restrict U.S. foreign policy actions regarding religious institutions abroad.

2. **Foreign Policy Implications**: The U.S. government's involvement in foreign religious institutions is not necessarily bound by the same constitutional restrictions as domestic actions. However, any support for a state-controlled church could raise concerns about promoting or endorsing a particular religion, which might conflict with broader principles of religious freedom and separation of church and state.

3. **Specific Case of Ukraine**: The claim involves the U.S. government's alleged support for a state-controlled church in Ukraine. While there is no direct evidence that the U.S. established a "fake state church," concerns have been raised about the treatment of religious figures and institutions in Ukraine. The situation is complex, involving political repression and geopolitical tensions.

4. **Legal and Ethical Considerations**: Even if the U.S. government did not directly establish a church, supporting a state-controlled religious institution could be seen as inconsistent with principles of religious freedom. The U.S. often promotes democracy and human rights, including religious liberties, in its foreign policy.

5. **Conclusion**: The claim that the U.S. government established a fake state church in a foreign country is not supported by direct evidence. However, concerns about U.S. support for regimes that suppress religious freedoms are valid and warrant scrutiny.

### Detailed Analysis

#### Legal Framework

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution includes the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the federal government from establishing a national church or preferring one religion over another[1][3][5]. This clause is primarily applied within the United States and does not directly govern U.S. actions abroad.

#### Foreign Policy Implications

U.S. foreign policy often involves supporting democratic values and human rights, including religious freedom. However, the U.S. government's actions in foreign countries are guided by a complex mix of strategic interests, diplomatic relations, and humanitarian concerns. While the U.S. may support religious institutions abroad for humanitarian or strategic reasons, this support must be carefully managed to avoid perceptions of endorsing a particular religion.

#### Specific Case of Ukraine

The situation in Ukraine involves political tensions, religious repression, and geopolitical conflicts. The claim that the U.S. government supports a state-controlled church in Ukraine raises concerns about religious freedom and the potential for political interference in religious affairs. However, there is no clear evidence that the U.S. has established a "fake state church" in Ukraine.

#### Legal and Ethical Considerations

Supporting a state-controlled church could be seen as inconsistent with U.S. principles of promoting religious freedom and democracy. The U.S. government should ensure that its foreign policy actions align with these principles, especially in contexts where religious freedoms are under threat.

#### Conclusion

While the claim about establishing a fake state church lacks direct evidence, it highlights important concerns about U.S. foreign policy and its impact on religious freedoms. The U.S. government should be cautious in its support for foreign regimes to ensure that it does not inadvertently undermine religious liberties or promote state control over religious institutions.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

1. **Documented Evidence**: Seek official documents or statements from the U.S. government regarding its support for religious institutions in Ukraine.
2. **International Law**: Examine international law and treaties related to religious freedom and state-church relations.
3. **Geopolitical Context**: Analyze the geopolitical dynamics and strategic interests involved in U.S.-Ukraine relations.

By focusing on these areas, a more comprehensive understanding of the situation can be developed, and the claim can be evaluated with greater precision.

Citations

Claim

Corruption in Ukraine is as ingrained as it is in Moscow.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Corruption in Ukraine is as Ingrained as it is in Moscow

To assess the claim that corruption in Ukraine is as ingrained as it is in Moscow, we need to examine the perception and evidence of corruption in both countries, as well as the societal structures that enable it.

### Corruption in Ukraine

1. **Perception and Reforms**: Despite Ukraine's reputation for corruption, significant strides have been made in anti-corruption reforms. Transparency International noted improvements in Ukraine's Corruption Perception Index (CPI) since 2013, with Ukraine being one of the few significant improvers[3]. The country has implemented stringent measures such as electronic income and asset declarations for officials and a transparent public procurement system, ProZorro, which has saved billions in procurement costs[1].

2. **Public Perception**: Ukrainians view corruption as a major issue, often linking it to government and military sectors. Recent polls show that corruption is a top concern for Ukrainians, with many believing it has increased during the war[2]. However, anti-corruption bodies are seen as independent and effective[2].

3. **Societal Structures**: Corruption in Ukraine is often attributed to post-Soviet economic transitions and politicized institutions. Local government corruption is particularly prevalent, with many citizens resorting to bribes to resolve issues[2].

### Corruption in Russia

1. **Perception and Governance**: Russia is known for its entrenched corruption, with a lack of transparency and accountability in governance. The 2022 Rule of Law Index ranks Russia 107th, significantly behind Ukraine at 76th[3]. Russia's corruption is deeply embedded in state structures, with little effective anti-corruption legislation or enforcement.

2. **Societal Structures**: Corruption in Russia is facilitated by authoritarian governance and a lack of independent institutions. The state controls significant sectors of the economy, creating opportunities for corruption and cronyism.

### Comparison and Conclusion

While both Ukraine and Russia face significant corruption challenges, the nature and extent differ:

– **Ukraine** has made notable progress in anti-corruption reforms and has a more transparent governance system compared to Russia. However, corruption remains a major societal issue, particularly at the local level and in sectors like customs and the military[1][2].

– **Russia** has a more entrenched and systemic form of corruption, deeply embedded in its authoritarian governance structure. There is less transparency and fewer effective anti-corruption measures[3].

In conclusion, while corruption is a significant issue in both countries, the claim that it is as ingrained in Ukraine as in Moscow does not fully capture the nuances. Ukraine has shown progress in addressing corruption, whereas Russia's corruption is more systemic and less addressed. Therefore, the claim is partially misleading as it does not reflect the differences in the extent and nature of corruption in the two countries.

### Additional Context: Propaganda and Geopolitical Implications

The claim also touches on propaganda and geopolitical implications. Russia actively uses corruption narratives as part of its information operations against Ukraine, aiming to undermine trust in the Ukrainian government[4]. This highlights the geopolitical dimension of corruption narratives and their use in shaping public opinion and international relations.

In the context of the ongoing war and geopolitical tensions, it is crucial to evaluate claims about corruption with a nuanced understanding of both countries' governance structures and societal contexts.

Citations

Claim

Zelensky is clearly doubling down on the repression, and anyone opposed to him should be in fear because he is a dictator.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

The claim that President Volodymyr Zelensky is a dictator who violently represses opposition and dissent requires a nuanced evaluation based on available evidence and context. Here's a detailed assessment:

## Martial Law and Elections

1. **Martial Law and Suspension of Elections**: Ukraine has been under martial law since the Russian invasion in February 2022, which has led to the suspension of elections[1][2]. This suspension is not unique to Zelensky's administration but is a wartime measure supported by many political figures in Ukraine, including some opposition leaders, who argue that holding elections during an ongoing war is logistically impossible and potentially dangerous[2].

2. **Dictatorship Claims**: Former U.S. President Donald Trump has labeled Zelensky a "dictator" due to the lack of elections, but this criticism overlooks the extraordinary circumstances of martial law and the broad support for it among Ukrainian politicians[2].

## Political Repression and Dissent

1. **Ban on Pro-Russian Parties**: Zelensky's government banned several pro-Russian political parties, including the Opposition Platform – for Life, following the invasion. This move was seen as a response to national security concerns rather than a general crackdown on opposition[1].

2. **Civil Society and Opposition Influence**: Despite the challenges, Ukraine's civil society remains active, and opposition figures continue to influence public discourse and international positions on Ukrainian issues[1]. This suggests that while Zelensky's administration holds significant power, it is not entirely unchallenged.

3. **Allegations of Repression**: There are concerns about political repression, including sanctions against former President Petro Poroshenko, which some view as a blow to national unity[2]. However, these actions are not universally condemned and are often seen within the context of wartime politics.

## Religious Freedom and Corruption

1. **Religious Freedom Concerns**: The attorney's claims about violent repression of religious figures, particularly within the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, highlight specific concerns about religious freedom. However, these allegations need to be evaluated against broader reports on religious freedom in Ukraine, which may provide a more nuanced view.

2. **Corruption and Governance**: Corruption remains a significant issue in Ukraine, and Zelensky's administration has faced criticism for its handling of oligarchic influence and corruption[3]. While these issues are serious, they do not necessarily equate to dictatorship.

## Conclusion

While there are valid concerns about political repression, the suspension of elections, and corruption under Zelensky's administration, labeling him a dictator may oversimplify the complex political landscape in Ukraine. The extraordinary circumstances of martial law and the ongoing war have concentrated power in the executive branch, but opposition voices still exist, and civil society remains active. Claims of violent repression of religious figures and dissent require further investigation to assess their validity and scope. Overall, the situation in Ukraine is complex, with both authoritarian tendencies and democratic resilience present.

In summary, the claim that Zelensky is a dictator who violently represses opposition is not entirely supported by available evidence. Instead, it reflects a mix of wartime measures, political tensions, and ongoing challenges to democratic governance in Ukraine.

Citations

Claim

The U.S. is at an inflection point regarding its relationship with Ukraine and the West.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that "the U.S. is at an inflection point regarding its relationship with Ukraine and the West," we need to analyze recent U.S. policy changes and speeches related to Ukraine. Here's a detailed assessment based on available information:

## U.S. Policy and Support for Ukraine

1. **Continued Support for Ukraine**: The U.S. has consistently provided significant military and economic aid to Ukraine, demonstrating a strong commitment to its defense against Russian aggression. This support is part of broader U.S. efforts to bolster Ukraine's position within the Euro-Atlantic community[1].

2. **Diplomatic Efforts**: Recent diplomatic engagements, such as the U.S.-Russia talks in Saudi Arabia, highlight ongoing efforts to address the conflict. However, these talks have not shown significant progress toward a peace agreement, with Russia maintaining its maximalist goals[2].

3. **Economic and Geopolitical Considerations**: The U.S. has also been mindful of the economic and geopolitical implications of the conflict, including the potential strengthening of ties between Russia and China. Sanctions imposed on Russia have been a key tool in pressuring Moscow, though they also have implications for U.S. interests[2][3].

## Claims of Repression and Corruption in Ukraine

1. **Allegations of Repression**: The attorney's claims about President Zelensky's regime violently repressing religious figures and operating amid corruption and suppressed dissent are not widely supported by mainstream sources. However, there have been concerns about religious freedoms and state-church relations in Ukraine.

2. **U.S. Support and Religious Freedoms**: The U.S. has generally been supportive of Ukraine's sovereignty and democratic development. However, specific allegations about funding a state-controlled church at the expense of religious freedoms would require more detailed investigation to verify.

## Geopolitical Consequences and Propaganda

1. **Geopolitical Implications**: The ongoing conflict has significant geopolitical consequences, including the potential for stronger Russia-China ties and the impact of sanctions on global economies[2][3].

2. **Propaganda and Dissenting Narratives**: The attorney's point about propaganda influencing Western views of Ukraine is valid, as information operations are a significant aspect of the conflict. However, it's crucial to rely on credible sources when assessing these narratives.

## Conclusion

The claim that the U.S. is at an inflection point regarding its relationship with Ukraine and the West is supported by the ongoing geopolitical tensions and the evolving nature of U.S. policy toward Ukraine. The U.S. continues to navigate complex diplomatic and economic challenges in its support for Ukraine, while also addressing broader geopolitical implications such as the Russia-China relationship and the impact of sanctions[1][2]. However, specific allegations about Ukraine's internal situation require more nuanced analysis and verification from reliable sources.

In summary, while the U.S. is indeed at a critical juncture in its relations with Ukraine and the broader Western community due to the ongoing conflict and geopolitical shifts, some specific claims about Ukraine's internal situation need further verification. The U.S. government's support for Ukraine remains strong, but the situation is complex and influenced by multiple factors, including diplomatic efforts, economic considerations, and propaganda narratives.

Citations

Claim

Many media outlets have failed to provide a fair hearing for the Orthodox Church's concerns in Ukraine.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Media Coverage of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine

The claim that many media outlets have failed to provide a fair hearing for the Orthodox Church's concerns in Ukraine can be assessed by examining recent reports and studies on the subject.

### Evidence from Recent Reports

1. **ZOiS Report Insights**: A recent ZOiS Report highlights that many members of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) attribute public disapproval of their church to misrepresentation in the media. They argue that the media often portray the UOC as the "Russian Church in Ukraine," which they believe is inaccurate and misleading[1][2]. This perception suggests that media coverage might not fully capture the nuances within the UOC, potentially leading to a biased public image.

2. **Media Criticism and State Influence**: The report also notes that some UOC members believe the Ukrainian state uses the media to discredit the church, particularly by focusing on investigations into UOC clerics and proposals to ban religious organizations affiliated with Russia[2]. This perceived state influence on media narratives could contribute to an uneven representation of the UOC's concerns.

3. **Lack of Diverse Perspectives**: The ZOiS Report mentions that only UOC members who did not identify as pro-Russia were willing to be interviewed, indicating that the full spectrum of views within the church might not be adequately represented in media coverage[1][2]. This limitation could result in a skewed perception of the church's stance and concerns.

### Geopolitical Context and Propaganda

The ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia has heightened tensions and influenced media narratives. Propaganda and geopolitical interests can significantly impact how religious issues are covered, potentially silencing dissenting voices or promoting specific narratives over others[4].

### Conclusion

While there is evidence suggesting that media coverage might not always provide a balanced view of the UOC's concerns, it is crucial to consider multiple sources and perspectives. The claim that media outlets have failed to offer a fair hearing is supported by perceptions of media bias and state influence among UOC members. However, a comprehensive evaluation requires examining a broader range of media outlets and geopolitical factors influencing these narratives.

### Recommendations for Further Evaluation

– **Diverse Media Sources**: Analyze coverage from a variety of international news outlets to assess consistency in reporting on the UOC.
– **Academic and Independent Reports**: Consult academic studies and reports from independent organizations to gain a deeper understanding of the media's role in shaping public opinion about the UOC.
– **Geopolitical Context**: Consider how the ongoing conflict and geopolitical interests might influence media narratives and the representation of religious groups in Ukraine.

Citations

Claim

The SBU is using old KGB texts in Ukraine for political repression.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: The SBU's Use of Old KGB Texts for Political Repression

To assess the claim that the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) is using old KGB texts for political repression, we need to examine the practices of the SBU, its historical context, and the legal framework surrounding such allegations.

### Historical Context and Practices

1. **KGB Legacy and Archives**: The SBU holds the world's largest declassified KGB archive, which includes documents revealing the mindset and tactics of KGB operatives[3]. However, there is no direct evidence that these archives are being used for political repression.

2. **SBU's Role and Controversies**: The SBU has been involved in several controversies, including allegations of human rights abuses, torture, and political repression during different regimes[1][5]. For instance, under Viktor Yanukovych, the SBU was used as a political tool to intimidate critics[1]. However, these actions are more reflective of political weaponization rather than the direct use of KGB texts.

3. **Legal Framework and Human Rights Concerns**: The SBU operates within a legal framework that has raised concerns regarding human rights abuses and political repression. Reports from organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have highlighted the SBU's involvement in secret detentions and torture[5]. While these practices are alarming, they do not specifically indicate the use of KGB texts.

### Conclusion

While the SBU has been criticized for its practices, including political repression and human rights abuses, there is no concrete evidence to support the claim that it is using old KGB texts specifically for these purposes. The SBU's actions are more aligned with political weaponization and systemic issues within Ukraine's governance.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

– **Access to SBU Operations**: Investigate internal SBU documents or testimonies that might reveal the use of KGB tactics or texts.
– **Legal and Policy Analysis**: Examine Ukrainian laws and policies governing intelligence services to understand how they might facilitate or prevent the use of KGB texts for political purposes.
– **International Human Rights Reports**: Continue monitoring reports from human rights organizations to identify any patterns or evidence of KGB-inspired repression.

In summary, while the SBU has faced criticism for its methods, the specific claim about using old KGB texts for political repression lacks direct evidence and requires further investigation.

Citations

Claim

The Ukrainian government has engaged in the theft of church assets.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Ukrainian Government's Involvement in Church Asset Theft

To assess the claim that the Ukrainian government has engaged in the theft of church assets, particularly focusing on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), we need to examine recent developments and actions taken by the Ukrainian government towards religious institutions.

### Background and Context

1. **Historical Context**: The UOC has historically been affiliated with the Russian Orthodox Church, but it declared independence in May 2022 following Russia's invasion of Ukraine[1]. This move has led to increased tensions and scrutiny of the UOC by the Ukrainian government.

2. **Government Actions**: The Ukrainian government has taken several steps that could be interpreted as targeting the UOC. For instance, in January 2023, the government terminated the UOC's lease of the Pechersk Lavra monastery complex in Kiev, a significant historical and religious site[1]. This action was part of a broader campaign to assert control over religious institutions perceived as aligned with Russia.

3. **Legal and Security Measures**: The Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) has conducted raids on UOC churches, imposed sanctions on bishops, and opened criminal cases against clergy members[1]. These actions are framed as part of a national security effort but have been criticized for potentially infringing on religious freedoms.

### Specific Cases and Claims

1. **Asset Seizure Claims**: An American attorney representing the UOC has raised concerns about the Ukrainian government's actions, including the potential seizure of church assets. However, specific instances of asset theft are not detailed in available sources[5].

2. **Government's Position**: The Ukrainian government's actions are justified as measures to protect national security and prevent Russian influence. However, critics argue that these actions may violate religious freedoms and target the UOC unfairly[4][5].

### Conclusion

While there is evidence of the Ukrainian government taking control of significant religious sites and imposing legal measures against the UOC, specific claims of asset theft are not well-documented in the available sources. The situation is complex, with political and security concerns intertwined with religious freedoms. Further investigation into specific asset seizure cases would be necessary to fully validate the claim of theft.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

1. **Documented Cases**: Look for detailed reports or legal documents that specifically mention the seizure of church assets.
2. **International Perspectives**: Consider international human rights reports or legal analyses that might provide a broader context on the situation.
3. **Government Statements**: Review official statements from the Ukrainian government regarding their policies towards religious institutions to understand their rationale and legal basis for actions taken.

In summary, while the Ukrainian government has taken significant actions against the UOC, including control over religious sites and legal actions against clergy, the claim of asset theft requires more specific evidence to be fully substantiated.

Citations

Claim

Zelensky is running a police state.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that President Volodymyr Zelensky is running a police state, we need to examine several key areas: press freedoms, political dissent, state control measures, and allegations of repression. Here's a detailed assessment based on available information:

## Press Freedoms

Press freedoms are a crucial indicator of a government's openness and respect for democratic values. In Ukraine, there have been concerns about press freedoms, particularly during the ongoing conflict with Russia. However, Ukraine has generally been recognized for maintaining a relatively free press environment compared to many other countries in the region.

– **Reporters Without Borders (RSF)** ranks Ukraine 97th out of 180 countries in its World Press Freedom Index for 2022, indicating some challenges but not a complete suppression of press freedoms[4]. This ranking suggests that while there are issues, the situation does not align with that of a typical police state.

## Political Dissent

Political dissent is another important factor in assessing whether a government operates as a police state. In Ukraine, there have been instances where political dissent has faced challenges, particularly during times of conflict or heightened security concerns.

– **Human Rights Watch** and other organizations have reported on restrictions and challenges faced by certain groups, including those perceived as pro-Russian or dissenting voices. However, these restrictions are often framed within the context of national security and the ongoing conflict with Russia[5].

## State Control Measures

State control measures, including surveillance and censorship, are common features of police states. In Ukraine, there have been efforts to regulate and monitor certain activities, especially those related to national security.

– **Legislation and policies** aimed at countering Russian influence and ensuring national security have led to increased scrutiny of media and political activities. While these measures can be seen as restrictive, they are generally justified as necessary responses to the conflict.

## Allegations of Repression

Allegations of violent repression, particularly against religious figures, are serious concerns. However, these claims need to be verified through credible sources.

– **The Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)** has faced significant challenges and scrutiny, partly due to its historical ties with Russia. There have been reports of tensions and conflicts involving this church, but these are often complex and multifaceted, involving religious, political, and historical factors.

## Conclusion

Based on the available evidence, while there are concerns about press freedoms, political dissent, and state control measures in Ukraine, the situation does not fully align with the characteristics of a police state as typically defined. Ukraine continues to face significant challenges, including an ongoing war and geopolitical tensions, which have led to increased security measures and restrictions. However, these are generally framed within the context of national security rather than outright suppression of dissent or freedoms.

The claim that Zelensky is running a police state appears to be an exaggeration, though it highlights legitimate concerns about the balance between security measures and democratic freedoms. A nuanced understanding of the complex geopolitical and historical context is necessary to accurately assess the situation in Ukraine.

—

**References:**

[1] OCCRP – Ukraine: Zelensky Chief Embroiled in Criminal Probe
[2] GovInfo – The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report
[3] Foreign Policy – Trump, Zelensky Escalate War of Words Over Russia
[4] Reporters Without Borders – World Press Freedom Index 2022
[5] Human Rights Watch – Ukraine
Various news sources on Ukrainian legislation and national security measures
Reports on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) and its challenges

**Note:** The references provided are a mix of direct citations from the search results and additional information typically available in academic or journalistic sources. For a comprehensive evaluation, consulting specific reports from organizations like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Freedom House would be beneficial.

Citations

Claim

The US is suffering from a disconnect between its institutions and principles, particularly regarding religious freedoms.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Disconnect Between US Institutions and Principles Regarding Religious Freedoms

The claim suggests that the United States is experiencing a disconnect between its institutions and principles, particularly concerning religious freedoms. This assertion can be explored by examining domestic policies and international actions that impact religious freedoms.

### Domestic Policies Impacting Religious Freedoms

1. **Project 2025 and Religious Freedoms**: Project 2025, a policy agenda developed by the Heritage Foundation, has been criticized for its potential to undermine religious freedom in the U.S. It promotes a Christian nationalist agenda, which could lead to the prioritization of one faith over others and blur the lines between church and state[1][3]. For instance, it advocates for faith-based programs to receive federal funding without strict oversight, potentially allowing religious organizations to impose their beliefs on others[1][5].

2. **First Amendment Protections**: The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution includes the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, which are designed to protect religious freedom by preventing the establishment of a state religion and ensuring the free exercise of religion, respectively[2]. However, conflicts between these clauses can arise, and federal courts play a crucial role in resolving these issues[2].

### International Actions and Religious Freedoms

1. **U.S. Support for Ukraine**: The claim mentions U.S. support for Ukraine's government, which allegedly represses religious figures and operates with corruption and suppressed dissent. While specific details about U.S. funding for a state-controlled church in Ukraine are not provided in the search results, the concern highlights the potential for U.S. foreign policy to inadvertently undermine religious freedoms abroad.

2. **Geopolitical Consequences**: The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has significant geopolitical implications, including potential alliances between Russia and China and the impact of sanctions on American interests. These factors can indirectly affect religious freedoms by influencing political stability and freedom of expression in the region.

### Conclusion

The claim about a disconnect between U.S. institutions and principles regarding religious freedoms has some basis in domestic policies like Project 2025, which could erode the separation of church and state. Internationally, U.S. foreign policy decisions, such as support for certain governments, may inadvertently impact religious freedoms. However, more specific evidence is needed to fully assess the situation in Ukraine and its implications for religious freedoms.

**Evidence and References:**

– **Domestic Policies**: Project 2025's emphasis on faith-based programs and its potential to undermine religious freedom principles is documented by organizations like the Interfaith Alliance[1][3].
– **First Amendment Protections**: The U.S. Courts provide detailed explanations of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, which are foundational to U.S. religious freedom protections[2].
– **International Actions**: While specific details about U.S. support for Ukraine's government and its impact on religious freedoms are not provided in the search results, concerns about geopolitical consequences and the need for careful evaluation of foreign policy decisions are relevant[4].

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!