EXCLUSIVE: A Ukrainian woman tells the REAL story of life in war-torn Ukraine.

SOPA Images / Contributor | Getty Images

Secretary of State Blinken just announced an additional $1 billion in aid to Ukraine during his surprise visit to Kiev. That brings the total sum of US aid sent to Ukraine to a whopping $76 BILLION. What's more? Biden asked for an additional $24 billion in aid destined for Ukraine. $100 BILLION later, and the war is STILL raging. Is there any end in site?

The answer is a resounding NO with the Biden administration continually touting the confident yet ambiguous declaration, "As long as it takes." What does that exactly entail? Will we continue to escalate our weapons shipments until Russia retaliates? Will we follow Ukraine into World War III? As long as the US unabashedly continues to aid Ukraine without a clear policy in mind, the war and its turmoil will continue...indefinitely.

Is there any end in site? The answer is a resounding NO.

From across the pond, it is difficult to put the continued toll of the war in perspective. However, the Ukrainian people encounter the heartwrenching realities of war every day. To give you a glimpse into the daily life of the Ukrainian people living in their war-torn country, a Blaze employee sat down with a Ukrainian woman living in the US, who opened up about her experiences during her trips to her homeland.

The Ukrainian people encounter the heartwrenching realities of war every day.

Her testimony paints a vivid picture of the harsh realities that the Ukrainians endure on a daily basis. As long as the war continues with no end in sight, their suffering will continue. One thing is clear: our leaders must demand an end to this war. The Ukrainian people deserve it.

To learn more about the REAL situation in Ukraine, be sure to tune into Glenn's special on Ukraine TOMORROW at 8:00 p.m. CT on Blaze TV. Here are the highlights from our sit-down with the Ukrainian woman, who wished to remain anonymous. The following has been edited for clarity and readability.

What is the state of morale of the Ukrainian people? 

“I saw many people who are holding on very strong, but when you touch them, when you give them a hug, they just break. They cry. And it’s such a deep cry… Because they cannot show their children that they are broken and there is no hope. They have to be strong for their kids and for [their] grandchildren."

How has the war taken a toll on the average citizen?

“Everything changed. They live in a war zone. I am from the western [region of Ukraine], and what you have there are people who are working for the front. There is lots going on. People are cooking or providing for people who are fighting. They’re sending buses of food and clothes and whatever is needed… [Western Ukraine] provides help."

What are some of the personal stories that you have witnessed? 

“I was at home, and [my sister] went on a walk with her husband and two children. Ten minutes later they were running back because they got the message on their phone that the rockets entered the Ukrainian sky, and they were flying towards our city.”

So the Ukrainian government sends people notifications?

“Yes, they get the notifications that the rockets are flying, which say, ‘Ok, they’re flying towards Kiev… or they’re flying towards this particular city. The trouble with this is that the rockets can change their direction. They always warn people on their phones. That’s what happened while I was there.”

You mentioned poverty. What does that look like for Ukrainians in day to day life?

“Compared to three years ago, bread is four times as much, so, it’s very expensive. It’s very hard to live. The state of life is not easy right now. People who have relatives overseas can survive. But for people who have none, it’s practically impossible to survive there. People there know how to survive on a little. It’s interesting, the mentality. They know how to survive on bread and water. If they don’t have food, they fast.”

How else has the war taken a toll on the average citizen?

"The war changed everything, but the biggest [change] is that they lost peace. They are haunted by the thought that they could be next. [The Russians] can kill them. [Russians] can attack their city, their home. My mom said that out of [her] seven children, I am the only one in a safe region [because] I live in America. She says, ‘Be grateful for the peace you have. Be grateful for the safety you have, because we don’t have that. We don’t have tomorrow. [We] can plan, [we] can have birthday parties, but we don’t know what’s going to happen today or in the evening or at night. If they’re going to bomb us, if they’re going to kill us. We don’t have tomorrow.’ That’s what my mom says.”

You mentioned that there are no young men left. How has that affected the country? How are the women and children providing for themselves?

“You have a nation that is fatherless and a nation of widows. There are lots of widows and orphans. When I was driving to my brother-in-law’s town, there was a display of young men who had been killed, pictures of young men [on] a town hall, [on a banner] who lived in that town, who were drafted and killed. I asked my brother-in-law, ‘How is it going here?’ He said, ‘They are taking our men. They are killing our young men. The working force, fathers, husbands. They need to go [fight in] the war, but you have unprotected children and wives and mothers who are left there. But, little by little, because of the war, they are killing young men. The towns are wiped out of young [men]. In my city where I walked, there are no young men walking [around], not many. This is the saddest part for me, that there are young guys who are fathers with young kids who have to fight. Husbands and sons, uncles, nephews... they’re gone.”

What was life like while living under communism?

"It was not easy to live under the communist system. I was a part of that. I experienced that. And when communism fell, I was 15 or 16. When we finally got this independence in 1991, we could live the way we want, like normal people live. [We could] say what we want, eat what we want, dress ourselves the way we want. We wanted to be our own people, you know? But the Soviet system was very gray. You wore the same clothes, you were going to the same school system--there were no private schools."

"The system was against Christianity, as well. They called us ‘gray mass.’ I remember this. They would always say, ‘If you stay gray and low, you will be ok. As long as you stay low and gray and do what they ask you to do, you’re fine. But as soon as you stick out and speak out and you are different, they will shoot you. They will put you in prison. They will poison you. They will find a way to get rid of you because you are different. So in 1991, it was like we want to be [free]. But now they are trying to put us back under their dominion.”

What does winning look like to Ukrainians?

“They just want Russians off our land. They don’t want [the Russians] to tell them what to do. We want to be free, and we want to live our lives, and work for ourselves, and feed our children. Our fault is that we are on the good soil and that we’re a hardworking people.”

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?  

Should Starbase become its own city?  

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.