DOHA, QATAR – Donald Trump Jr. used a headline-grabbing speech at the Doha Forum on Sunday to issue a blunt warning about U.S. support for Ukraine, hinting that his father, President Donald J. Trump, may be ready to walk away from the conflict. Speaking to a packed crowd of diplomats, executives, and policymakers in Qatar, he kept it short but clear when asked if his father might cut Ukraine loose: “I think he may.”

The line hit hard and captured the growing frustration inside the Trump camp as its push for a negotiated end to Russia’s 2022 invasion runs into constant obstacles. For nearly a year, President Trump has led an aggressive peace push, promising to end the war far faster than what he calls the Biden-era “endless wars” that cost American money and lives.

From tense sessions in Alaska to quiet shuttle talks led by trusted allies like Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the Trump team has been promoting a 28-point peace plan built on what it sees as practical tradeoffs rather than ideal demands. Yet Thanksgiving targets have slipped by, and the talks have turned into a grind of partial steps, standoffs, and repeated delays.

Trump Jr.’s comments in Doha were more than casual family talk. They reflected the mood inside Trump’s circle, where early optimism about a fast deal has cooled. “What’s good about my father is you don’t know what he’s going to do,” he joked, echoing the unpredictable bargaining style that marked Trump’s first term. Behind the humor, though, was a blunt message: the United States will not act as an endless “idiot with the chequebook.”

A Son’s Harsh Attack on Zelensky and Ukraine’s Corruption

On stage with his business partner Omeed Malik of 1789 Capital, Trump Jr. quickly shifted the discussion from markets and investment to a fierce critique of Ukraine’s leadership. He described President Volodymyr Zelensky as a “borderline deity” for many on the American left, a polished media figure who moved from comedian to war hero. Then he tore into that image.

He argued that Ukraine was “a much more corrupt country than Russia,” pointing to pre-war U.S. assessments that put Kyiv near the top of global corruption rankings. Under Zelensky, he claimed, “the money trains have not stopped.” According to Trump Jr., billions in U.S. aid have been siphoned off by oligarchs and officials while regular Ukrainians, described by him as the “peasant class,” pay the price on the front line.

His comments draw on a wave of 2025 scandals that have battered Zelensky’s reputation at home and abroad. In November, Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) announced “Operation Midas,” a major investigation into a scheme that allegedly stole $100 million from state nuclear company Energoatom through kickbacks and rigged contracts.

Prosecutors say contractors were forced to hand over 15 percent bribes to win deals, and investigators traced some of the laundered money to Zelensky’s close circle. One of the key names tied to the case is Tymur Mindich, a longtime business associate of Zelensky, who reportedly left Ukraine just hours before a raid on his luxury apartment in Kyiv.

The scandal triggered the resignations of two ministers, new sanctions, and the removal of Zelensky’s powerful chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, often described in Kyiv as a “de facto vice president,” amid reports of possible links to the scheme.

Opponents like former President Petro Poroshenko have called the stolen funds “blood money,” accusing the leadership of looting while soldiers die at the front. Trump Jr. pushed that theme hard. “Do we really think all this was honestly earned in Ukraine?” he asked, highlighting how domestic anger in the United States now shapes foreign policy.

Polls show Ukraine is far from a top concern for most Americans, ranking well behind issues like fentanyl deaths and record numbers at the southern border. On the 2024 campaign trail, Trump Jr. says he heard more about drugs and crime than about Kyiv. In his words, only “three people” out of “hundreds of thousands” he met brought up Ukraine at all.

Trump’s team has leaned into that mood. The president himself has recently complained that Zelenskyy would not even “read the peace proposal,” an accusation that plays into the picture of a partner wasting U.S. efforts and money.

For Trump’s circle, this is not an abstract debate. They argue that corruption in Kyiv is one of the main reasons talks are stuck. Trump promised to end the war in “24 hours,” but Don Jr. accuses Zelensky of dragging things out to cling to power and keep the money flowing. According to Trump Jr., “the rich fled” at the start of the war, leaving those they view as the “peasant class” to fight and die while luxury cars with Ukrainian plates fill Monaco’s streets.

For conservatives who have long seen Ukraine as a costly “forever war” tied to Biden and his allies, the stream of corruption cases in Kyiv looks like confirmation of their worst fears.

Peace Talks Go Nowhere

Trump Jr.’s warning came as yet another round of diplomacy hit a wall. Just days before the Doha event, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner spent more than five hours in the Kremlin with Vladimir Putin on December 2, reviewing an updated American peace plan point by point.

The session produced polite words but little substance. Putin called some elements “more or less acceptable” but rejected others and repeated his demand for firm recognition of Russian control over key areas like the full Donbas region, even by force if needed.

There was no real movement. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov brushed off the lack of progress as part of a “normal working process,” while Putin used the moment to warn that Russia is “ready” for a wider conflict if Europe raises the stakes.

Soon after, the U.S. team flew to Miami for intense meetings with Ukrainian officials, including Defense Minister Rustem Umerov and Chief of Staff Andriy Hnatov. Zelensky joined by phone, calling the discussions “constructive” but “not easy,” a hint at disagreements over security guarantees and hard territorial issues such as Zaporizhzhia. By Saturday, both American and Ukrainian officials admitted that any serious breakthrough would depend on Moscow showing a real interest in scaling back the war.

All this played out while Russian drones kept striking Kyiv, killing civilians and damaging infrastructure, even as negotiators traded drafts and edits.

These latest talks are part of a longer series of Trump-led efforts, including meetings in Geneva and quiet talks in Abu Dhabi. Each round has revolved around a 28-point draft plan that asks Ukraine to accept caps on its armed forces at 600,000 troops and formal neutrality outside NATO, among other concessions.

The White House calls the proposal a “living document,” open to revision, but the balance of power on the battlefield has shifted. Russia’s slow, grinding gains and enormous casualty numbers, which U.S. estimates put at 1,438,000 since 2022, have placed more pressure on Ukraine and made Putin less inclined to bend.

Trump has gone back and forth, from sending Ukraine Tomahawk missiles to scolding Zelensky for stalling. He now calls the conflict a “mess” and reminds listeners that “it takes two to tango,” his way of saying Washington will not carry the talks forever.

European Interference: A Major Obstacle to a Deal

Trump Jr. did not single out European leaders by name in Doha, but his message lined up closely with what many in Trump’s orbit say in private. They argue that Europe is making the talks harder, not easier.

According to the Trump team, officials in Brussels and London keep telling Zelensky not to settle unless he receives firm U.S. guarantees and stronger terms, which undercuts Washington’s attempts to move both sides toward a deal.

Kremlin adviser Yuri Ushakov has accused the European Union of “peace sabotage,” claiming EU officials raise expectations, push Kyiv to stay tough, and then blame Moscow when talks fail, a pattern he says goes back to 2014. Putin has added his own attacks, accusing Europe of lacking any real “peaceful agenda” and chasing the fantasy of a total Russian defeat while still leaning on American weapons and funding.

While U.S. envoys were in Moscow, EU foreign ministers met in Brussels to discuss a separate effort to spend frozen Russian assets, promising €90 billion in support but running into resistance from Belgium over legal risks. French President Emmanuel Macron, German leader Friedrich Merz, and Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer later gathered in London to review the U.S. ideas. Their public message was that any settlement must be “just and lasting,” language that in Washington is often read as code for blocking concessions that might end the war sooner but leave Russia with gains.

At the same time, NATO’s Marco Rubio skipped an important Brussels meeting, a clear signal of growing strain inside the alliance. European leaders have criticized Trump’s security approach as too “confrontational,” especially his attacks on the EU over migration and free speech issues.

For Trump’s advisors and allies, this is not a real partnership. They see it as elite posturing by a continent that has not matched U.S. spending. While the United States has poured around $175 billion into the conflict, it argues that Europe is still lagging.

Trump Jr. told the Doha audience that Americans have “no appetite” for endless blank checks that let EU politicians look tough while Washington pays most of the bill. Russian investment chief Kirill Dmitriev has echoed that view, saying U.S. officials now understand that Europe must “stop undermining the real peace process.”

Trump, who points to seven conflicts he claims to have settled or cooled during his first term, appears unwilling to let European leaders derail what he sees as his signature foreign policy project.

Stepping Back: A Hard Reset for American Priorities

Trump Jr.’s speech in Qatar was not framed as a surrender. Instead, he presented it as a call for accountability from Kyiv, Europe, and Washington alike. With public faith in Zelensky sliding and scandals like the reported $100 million Energoatom fraud exposing deep problems inside Ukraine’s wartime leadership, he argues that the U.S. cannot keep underwriting a system plagued by graft.

Ukrainians themselves have shown anger. Earlier this year, Zelensky faced intense protests after he tried to curb the powers of NABU, the same anti-corruption agency now handling Operation Midas. The backlash forced him to reverse course, and a member of parliament warned that unchecked theft during war risks “catastrophe” as Russia presses forward.

If President Trump decides to walk away, as his son suggests is possible, it will force a major shift. Europe would have to raise spending and take real responsibility, or accept a weaker Ukraine. Kyiv would have to clean house and prove that aid is spent on defense and reform, not luxury apartments and offshore accounts.

For many conservatives, that choice fits with what they see as Trump’s core message: focus on American safety and prosperity first, from the fentanyl crisis to the border, instead of funding a foreign leader who is treated at home like a “deity” but faces growing criticism in his own country.

The Doha Forum, hosted by Qatar, offered a symbolic backdrop. Qatar has gained a reputation as a mediator in conflicts like Gaza, and Trump Jr. praised what he called Doha’s “America First” style, in which it supports partners without constant public showboating. He contrasted that with what he sees as endless speeches and moral lectures from Brussels.

As 2025 nears its end, the choices ahead are sharpening. Peace in Ukraine will not come from slogans or moral posturing, he argued, but from hard bargains and honest talk. Trump’s team says it has gone to great lengths already, with eight calls between Trump and Putin and five major summits led by Steve Witkoff, on top of many side meetings.

From their point of view, those efforts keep running into two problems: stubborn corruption in Kyiv and what they call European arrogance. Trump Jr. framed his warning as both a political shot and a personal plea to his father. In his words, the United States should not let leaders like Zelensky burn through American goodwill and tax dollars without real change.

If Ukraine refuses to negotiate in good faith, he says, America will not beg. In his closing message, he argued that any real peace must start with hard truths. In Doha, he made clear that, in his view, those truths can no longer be ignored.

Related News:

Zelenskyy’s Halo Cracks as Corruption Scandal Erodes Western Sympathy

KYIV – Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, once seen simply as the determined leader defying Vladimir Putin, now faces a serious shift in his narrative. A massive corruption scandal involves his inner circle and has led even his most committed Western backers to express deep concern.

Russian missile strikes cause frequent power outages across Ukraine; meanwhile, the uncovering of a $100 million alleged embezzlement scheme at Energoatom, the state-run nuclear energy company, has shifted Zelenskyy’s public perception.

He has gone from wartime icon to a bureaucrat struggling with internal conflict. Key media outlets, including The New York Times and The Economist, are focusing scrutiny on the issue, which could threaten the continuous supply of international aid to Ukraine.

The investigation, nicknamed Operation Midas, exploded in mid-November 2025. It went public like a bomb hitting the president’s command center. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) revealed wiretaps and evidence detailing a criminal network.

This group allegedly diverted kickbacks from energy contracts intended to protect Ukraine’s nuclear facilities from Russian sabotage. At the center of the allegations was Timur Mindich. He is a media executive and co-founder of the TV studio that launched Zelenskyy’s acting career before the presidency.

Mindich reportedly fled Kyiv just hours before authorities raided his home. He is accused of funneling the money through channels linked to Russia. This fact creates a painful irony for a country fighting to push back Moscow’s invasion.

The investigation did not stop with minor players. It quickly reached high-ranking cabinet members. The scrutiny culminated in the resignation of Andriy Yermak, Zelenskyy’s powerful chief of staff and foreign envoy, following a police search of his home on November 28. Before this, Energy Minister Herman Halushchenko and Justice Minister Svitlana Hrynchuk had already stepped down at the president’s request.

Their departures were an attempt to contain the spread of the scandal. Petro Poroshenko’s European Solidarity party issued a scathing critique, calling the money “blood money.” They pointed out the stark contrast between soldiers rationing ammunition at the front and elites allegedly profiting from stolen energy deals.

From Reformer to Figure of Controversy

Zelenskyy won the presidency in 2019, promising to eliminate corruption. His appeal as an outsider strongly rejected Ukraine’s establishment, dominated by oligarchs. While campaigning, he famously promised, “I will buy back every hryvnia stolen from the people.”

However, after Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, the war overshadowed domestic issues. Western nations, which embraced Zelenskyy as a hero, mostly ignored entrenched corruption in Kyiv. Billions in aid flowed with minimal oversight. By late 2025, the U.S. alone had provided over $175 billion, often channeled through opaque state entities such as Energoatom.

This period of neglect ended as detailed evidence of the scandal emerged. Intercepted calls, over a thousand hours of them, revealed that conspirators, using code names, pressured contractors. They demanded cuts of 20 to 30 percent on projects to build shelters, which were vital for wartime energy protection.

Ukrainians were already enduring mandatory blackouts, with Russian drones having disabled 70 percent of the power grid. The alleged misuse of funds meant to boost energy resilience, instead of financing luxurious homes in Cyprus, amplified public outrage.

Opposition lawmakers, limited by martial law’s freeze on elections, quickly seized the opportunity. A cross-party alliance formed the first serious challenge to the president since the invasion, declaring that Zelenskyy’s cabinet was “unprofessional and corrupt.”

The New York Times Report: Oversight Undermined

A devastating article in The New York Times, published December 5, titled “Zelensky’s Government Sabotaged Oversight, Allowing Corruption in Ukraine to Fester,” delivered the sharpest blow. The investigative report, based on interviews with fired board members, internal documents, and diplomatic sources, portrayed deliberate negligence.

To secure large amounts of Western funding, Ukraine promised to establish independent supervisory boards. These boards, staffed by experts from the U.S. and the EU, were intended to review spending at major state firms like Energoatom, Ukrenergo, and the Defense Procurement Agency. Called “guardrails” by a former advisor, these panels were supposed to audit management, approve contracts, and prevent corruption.

Instead, Zelenskyy’s administration reportedly disabled the boards internally. Essential independent positions were left unfilled or filled with loyalists to the president. Boards were unable to reach a quorum. At Energoatom, a 2024 revision to the company charter stripped the board of its authority to veto the hiring of the CEO, allegedly opening the door for the kickback operation.

One former board member told the Times that the boards “weren’t real.” Similar complaints surfaced at Ukrenergo, where political interference reportedly approved $200 million in questionable arms transactions. The result was that hundreds of millions of dollars vanished in the obscurity of wartime spending, even as donors like the EU offered €50 billion in reconstruction funds tied to reform measures.

Zelenskyy’s team tried to shift the blame to the very oversight mechanisms they had weakened. The Times likened this tactic to “blaming the lifeguard for the drowning.” The newspaper’s investigation concluded the problem was systemic sabotage, not merely a few bad actors.

The president’s unsuccessful attempt in July 2025 to weaken NABU, blocked by Brussels, was cited as clear evidence. The paper’s editorial stated that the president who promised to stop corruption had instead become its “enabler.” This was a significant departure from earlier praise for Zelenskyy’s resolve.

Media Focus Shifts on Zelenskyy

The Times was not alone in its critical assessment. The Economist cautioned on November 17 that the “huge corruption scandal threatens Ukraine’s government,” characterizing it as the greatest challenge Zelenskyy has faced since the invasion. BBC News ran the headline “Major corruption scandal engulfs top Zelensky allies,” highlighting the resignations against the backdrop of blackouts freezing millions.

The Guardian examined the relationship between Zelenskyy and Yermak, suggesting it was now “toxic” following the raids, which cast a shadow over peace negotiations. Even NPR, generally supportive of Kyiv, reported on December 4 about a “corruption investigation rocking Ukraine’s leadership” and noted how the probe “hits close to Zelenskyy” after his actions against anti-corruption bodies.

This change in media tone reflects general exhaustion and skepticism. As polarized debates about U.S. aid packages intensify in Congress, with some Republican opponents using the scandal as a reason to cut funding, European outlets, including Politico, have praised NABU’s success. They credit the independence of these agencies for revealing issues the administration failed to tackle.

Colleagues described the event as “The most damaging scandal of his presidency,” stressing how it diminishes the moral standing Kyiv depends on. Analysts like Jakub Parusinski of KI Insights argue that Ukrainians, having experienced Soviet-era theft, view corruption during wartime as treason. Public sentiment shows Zelenskyy’s approval rating falling to 55 percent. While this is still respectable, it is far below the 90 percent support he enjoyed at the start of the invasion.

Aid in Jeopardy: The Global Impact

The scandal has consequences reaching Brussels and Washington, where anti-corruption metrics determine Ukraine’s EU accession hopes. While a spokesperson for the European Commission acknowledged NABU’s raids as a sign of reform progress, sources have indicated that some funds have been paused.

Approximately €5 billion in grants are reportedly under review. NATO hopefuls worry about defense procurement scandals affecting the flow of weapons. Reconstruction officials in London and Berlin are demanding revisions to governance boards before releasing billions for rebuilding.

Zelenskyy, known for his performative approach, has attempted damage control, sanctioning Mindich, vowing to “cleanse” energy companies, and delivering a televised address. He insisted, “Russia wants us divided. We won’t give them the satisfaction.”

However, opposition legislators are demanding a full institutional purge, and activists are protesting under “No More Blood Money” banners. The wartime unity the president maintained is fracturing. In a December 6 analysis for the Atlantic Council, experts encouraged Zelenskyy to take full responsibility, suggesting that genuine reforms would serve as a defense against Putinism.

For Ukraine, a country where corruption has destroyed more potential than military attacks, this issue is far more than just a political drama. It is an existential threat. Zelenskyy, the former entertainer turned national leader, now navigates a crisis that could severely tarnish his legacy.

Will the increased critical reporting by Western media finally force meaningful change, or will it simply accelerate the reduction of aid as Ukraine’s front lines remain fragile? In the cold reality of Kyiv, the answer feels as pressing as the next air raid siren.

Related News:

Bosnia and Herzegovina Mark 30 Years Since the Dayton Peace Agreement

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a move that signals a stronger, more structured backing for Taipei, U.S. President Donald Trump has signed the Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act into law. The measure requires ongoing, formal reviews of how American officials deal with the self-governed island, deepening the institutional framework around U.S.-Taiwan ties.

The legislation passed with rare, solid bipartisan support and drew an immediate and harsh response from Beijing. The reaction highlights how Taiwan remains one of the most sensitive flashpoints in the Indo-Pacific region.

This new law, described by analysts as both practical and symbolic, is viewed as the first major pro-Taiwan measure of Trump’s second term. It reinforces Washington’s long-term backing for Taiwan’s democracy, which China claims as part of its own territory.

The act targets decades-old, self-imposed limits on senior-level contact between U.S. and Taiwanese officials. Critics of those restrictions say they no longer fit U.S. strategic interests, especially as Beijing ramps up pressure and coercion against the island.

What the Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act Changes

The Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act builds on and amends the Taiwan Assurance Act of 2020. Its most important change is the new requirement for the U.S. Department of State to carry out a regular, structured re-examination of its internal rules for official dealings with Taiwan.

Under the 2020 act, the State Department only had to conduct a single review of its guidelines on interaction with Taipei. The new implementation law turns that one-off exercise into a recurring process. It orders the department to perform a full review and send an updated report to the foreign affairs committees of both the Senate and the House “not less than every five years.”

Once each review is done, the updated report must be delivered within 90 days.

This recurring review system is meant to keep U.S. engagement with Taiwan aligned with current conditions in the region. It is intended to prevent policy from being locked into outdated rules that were created after Washington shifted diplomatic recognition to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1979. By locking in regular updates, the law seeks to reduce sudden policy swings and reinforce the image of the United States as a steady and dependable partner for Taiwan.

The bill’s backers, including Representatives Ann Wagner (R) and the late Gerry Connolly (D), stressed that building these reviews into law will support a more forward-leaning U.S. policy towards Taiwan across different administrations. They argue that this will make American support less vulnerable to changing political moods in Washington.

Taipei Hails a “Major Step Forward”

Taiwan’s government quickly welcomed the signing of the act. Both the Presidential Office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued statements expressing deep thanks to President Trump and the U.S. Congress for their strong bipartisan support.

Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung called the new law a “major step forward in U.S.-Taiwan relations.” He said that more frequent reviews and updates would let officials from both sides interact more fully. In practice, this could mean more Taiwanese officials visiting U.S. federal agencies for high-level discussions on security, trade, and other key issues.

For Taipei, the law sends a strong message about the value Washington places on close ties with Taiwan. Officials also see it as a sign of shared values, including democracy, freedom, and respect for human rights.

Presidential Office Spokeswoman Karen Kuo stressed that a strong U.S.-Taiwan partnership is seen as a cornerstone for maintaining peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region. The timing is also important. The law follows Taiwan’s own approval of an eight-year, US$40 billion supplementary defence budget. This spending package is meant to boost Taiwan’s asymmetric defence capabilities as pressure from the PRC continues to grow.

Beijing Issues “Red Line” Warning

As expected, Beijing reacted with anger to the new U.S. law. The PRC views any official contact between Washington and Taipei as a challenge to its “one-China principle,” which it says is the foundation of China-U.S. relations.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian issued a sharp warning, stating that the “Taiwan question is at the core of China’s core interests and is the first red line that must not be crossed in China-U.S. relations.” Beijing has long opposed any move that might raise Taiwan’s status on the global stage or hint at recognition of its separate governance. Chinese officials repeat that such actions could fuel tension in the already-strained Taiwan Strait.

The timing adds to the sensitivity. The law comes only months after high-level talks between American and Chinese leaders, including a meeting between President Trump and President Xi Jinping in South Korea. While the U.S. still formally follows a “one-China policy,” critics in Beijing argue that a series of U.S. laws, such as the Taiwan Travel Act, the Taiwan Assurance Act, and now the implementation act, reveal a clear shift. They see a pattern of building a deeper, more structured, though still officially “unofficial,” relationship with Taiwan.

Regional and Global Watchfulness

Governments across East Asia and beyond are paying close attention to these developments. The rising level of U.S.-Taiwan cooperation comes as Taiwan faces near-daily incursions by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) into its Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ).

Recent U.S. steps have included the approval of an arms sale sustainment package for Taiwan’s air force, aimed at keeping existing systems effective for longer. With the new law, channels for political dialogue and defence cooperation are set to become more consistent and predictable. Supporters say this can strengthen deterrence against possible Chinese military action.

The Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act not only tightens the bureaucratic framework that guides U.S.-Taiwan relations, but it also adds another source of stress to already fraught China-U.S. ties. Taiwan sits squarely at the centre of this strategic contest in the Indo-Pacific, and this law further cements its role as a key test of future relations between Washington and Beijing.

Related News:

Trump’s Narco-Takedown is Sqeezing Global Finance’s Dirty Secrets