ROMAN SHEREMETA

Dec 22, 2025

A Split Among U.S. Conservatives Is Becoming Evident

On Thursday in the United States, the first major Turning Point USA conference took place after the killing of its founder, Charlie Kirk. The event became a venue where the long-maturing rift within the American right was outlined more clearly than ever before. Speeches by Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson (whose repeated invitations further discredit the conservative movement) demonstrated a deep worldview divide over what “healthy conservatism” actually means. Both speakers appealed to Christian ethics and freedom of speech, yet did so from completely opposite positions.

Ben Shapiro’s speech amounted to a harsh internal critique of the movement. His central argument was that conservatism is under threat not only from the left, but also from within — a danger that for a long time had been underestimated. Conspiracy theorists, manipulators, and public figures who паразitize on public distrust of government have become conduits for dangerous ideas and have distorted the truth. Shapiro therefore outlined five duties of public speakers: to tell the truth; to act on principles; to take responsibility for their guests and their words (an obvious reference to Tucker Carlson); to provide evidence; and to propose real solutions rather than mere criticism.

Especially revealing was Shapiro’s criticism of those who systematically legitimize scandalous figures — from conspiracy theorists and neo-Nazis to pseudo-historians and outright propagandists. In this context, he explicitly mentioned Tucker Carlson (who legitimizes literal criminals), Candace Owens (recently known for extreme forms of conspiracism), Steve Bannon (a MAGA political strategist and conspiracy propagandist), Andrew Tate (who replaces the “ideal of masculinity” with the exploitation of women), and Nick Fuentes (a neo-Nazi who popularizes Hitler and Stalin).

Later, Tucker Carlson himself took the stage and was forced to respond to the criticism. He presented himself as a victim of a “new censorship” already within the right-wing camp. His speech focused on freedom of speech and the rejection of collective guilt. At first glance, this sounds like a classic conservative set of themes, but the problem lies in how they are applied. Carlson consistently reduces any criticism of his views to “witch hunts,” and turns the principle of non-discrimination into an equation of all forms of hatred without regard for real ideological threats — as if criticism of the left should automatically justify the normalization of neo-Nazism, antisemitism, or his sympathy for the Kremlin.

Under the slogan “America First,” Carlson promotes radical isolationism, in which enemies of the West (including Islamist regimes) are presented not as ideological adversaries but as “victims of American interventionism.” He directly identifies the United States as the cause of the rise of radical Islam and morally equates the West with totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. From the stage of a conservative conference, Carlson literally justifies these regimes, saying:

“We are constantly told that there are countries and peoples who embody evil. That you must not speak to them, must not try to understand their motives — you must only hate them… States do not become brutal for no reason. Brutality almost always grows out of fear, humiliation, and a sense of threat.”

By contrast, Shapiro’s position exemplifies classical conservative distinction: freedom of speech does not mean moral permissiveness, and skepticism toward government policy does not justify sympathy for anti-Western or totalitarian movements. For adherents of traditional American conservatism, this is obvious. However, the “new right” reacts negatively or even hostilely toward what it derides as “Cold War–era thinking.” They seek new allies among brutal and openly barbaric regimes, constructing geopolitical concepts in their own minds through a lack of basic education and understanding of other societies. Despite criticism and the exposure of the fallacy of this course by Shapiro and others, it is striking that Turning Point USA continues to show loyalty to Carlson and continues to invite him to such events.

Source: translated and adopted from a post Християни для України

………………..

Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski “awarded” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán the Order of Lenin in a post on X.

It was a reaction to a post by Orbán, in which Orban wrote about blocking a loan for Ukraine funded by frozen russian assets.

…………,.,,,….

JD Vance: “We believe in honoring your father and mother rather than shipping all their money off to Ukraine.”

What a repulsive statement.

First, if you truly “honor” your father and mother, you would do everything possible to stop russian genocide — which is literally wiping out entire families.

Second, the vast majority of Americans support Ukraine.

I sincerely hope this morally bankrupt man is never elected again.

Hideous video of VanZkov here :

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1DU5zsUHgP/?mibextid=wwXIfr

………………

Many people idealize Ukrainians. Some imagine us as berserkers charging toward Valhalla; others think we love freedom so fiercely that we are ready to die for it.

But the truth is simpler — and more human.
We want to survive, both as individuals and as a nation. We want our children not to face another war in 10–20 years. And we understand that fighting gives us a chance to live, while surrender means death.

Not just the death of a nation. Your own death as well. Maybe not on the battlefield, not from a drone or a rocket, but quietly. They will come to your home at night, take you away, and you will vanish. No headlines. No outrage. Everything on the surface will look peaceful — just fewer people around.

It happened to my great-grandfather and his three brothers. They were taken in the night and disappeared. No information, no grave, nothing. Only decades later did I find in an online archive that they were executed in 1938 in Zhytomyr. My mother never even knew when or how her grandfather died.

If Russia occupies more land, this can happen again — to anyone. If it happens to me, you won’t know either. Trump will claim he “made peace” and that no one is dying on the battlefield. But the killing will continue in the occupied territories, hidden from view. And it will happen everywhere Russia is allowed to advance. What do you think will happen to the 400,000 people living in the region Putin wants as part of the “peace deal” that Witkoff is pushing?

And we remember 1933. The Soviet regime confiscated food from Ukrainians, and millions starved. My great-grandmother survived the Holodomor at age 13. Sixty years later she still panicked when the potato harvest was slightly worse than usual. Gareth Jones, a Welsh journalist, reported the truth — but the US bought cheap grain because it was a “good deal,” and other journalists mocked him. Think about this: up to 10 million people died in a man-made famine, and the world shrugged. It was genocide on the scale of the Holocaust, yet few know about it.

If Ukrainians in occupied territories start disappearing again, will anyone care?
Even I — with all my posts — could end up on their kill lists.

The Moscow regime is already repeating the same atrocities. Look at the mass graves in the cities liberated in 2022. Listen to the witnesses.

So understand this: for Ukrainians, “peace” can be far scarier than war if it simply means giving Russia what it wants. That is why we keep fighting.

And one more thing — idealizing Ukrainians creates the illusion that every Ukrainian must be perfect. But we are real people, not movie characters. We have traitors who work for Moscow. We have thieves who steal even during war. We have those who flee because not everyone is ready to risk their life. War exposes the true nature of people: some become heroes, others lose any honor they had.

But the fact remains: Ukraine has been resisting for four years against an army feared by most “civilized” countries. That alone speaks for itself.

Author: Volodymyr Kukharenko

…………….,.,,,

A russian smashed her face with the butt of a rifle. He knocked out her teeth, slashed her stomach with a knife, and raped her. Before leaving, he stole her bicycle and left a single bullet on the table as a “souvenir.”

The face of Liudmyla, a 75-year-old teacher from Kherson, comes back to documentary filmmaker Alisa Kovalenko when she reads Trump’s new “peace plan.”

While politicians bargain over territory, the deal hides a clause on full amnesty. That means forgiving the rapist, The Times writes.

Alisa knows what amnesty means for an executioner. In 2014, a russian officer forced her to strip and wash in front of him while he cleaned his weapon. Then he raped her. “They didn’t kill me, but they broke me,” victims say.

Sixty-three-year-old Iryna Dovhan was accused of espionage. She was tied to a pole in a public square, wrapped in a Ukrainian flag, and a sign reading “child killer” was hung around her neck.

Passersby approached, beat her, and spat in her face. Her photo appeared in The New York Times, but at home another blow awaited her.

A Ukrainian prosecutor refused to record the rape. He said, “Your dignity has been compromised.” He forced her to leave. Her own country refused to hear about the rape because it was “inconvenient.”

Kateryna Levchenko says that up to 70% of male prisoners of war have also endured sexual violence. russia uses rape as a weapon to crush resistance.

“Peace cannot come at the price of justice,” Alisa says. Agreeing to amnesty sends a signal to every dictator: invade, rape, erase identity — and face no consequences.

Source: translated and adopted from Tymofiy Mylovanov