Did you hear the one about the Ukrainian missile that blew up a Russian bot farm? Initially, the media reported widespread outages of pro-Russian, pro-Palestinian, and pro-Qatar accounts, crashing mentions of “genocide” and “Free Palestine” on social media — and killing engagement for some of your favorite podcasters:

It’s a fascinating theory. (And a comforting theory, too, if you oppose Tucker Carlson and company’s ideology.) And it’s even led to spinoff conspiracies — such as Elon Musk’s REAL motive in interfering with Ukrainian access to Starlink:

Of course! It was payback for Ukraine interfering with Elon Musk’s propaganda campaign in the closing days of the midterms!

In fact, maybe that’s why Fox News is badmouthing Ukraine:

Hooray! Democrats are rejoicing! Ukraine is saving our democracy!

Recommended
If This Is True About Susie Wiles, It's Not Good News Matt Margolis Democrats Discover the Fourth Amendment, Just in Time for Ilhan Omar Eric Florack

Only it’s almost certainly fake news. Musk didn’t lose 100 million followers. The Russian bot theory has plenty of holes. And, alas, Carlson’s engagement didn’t crash:

Soon, internet contrarians were side-eyeing the social media accounts that pushed this now-disputed claim: Maybe the theory that pro-Russian propaganda is all being driven by a bot campaign… is all being driven by a bot campaign!

Welcome to Election Season 2026, where everything is meta, lies are the truth, and nobody knows nothin’. Reality is a Choose Your Own Adventure book; pick whichever version you prefer.

Which brings us to the latest brouhaha between the U.S. and Ukraine. According to Volodymyr Zelensky, President Donald Trump has joined Russia’s side — and now our partnership is over.

Foreign policy disputes are seldom singular; this one is no exception. There’s the sky-high casualty count on both sides, the risk of escalation, and Russia’s nuclear arsenal. But the recent finger-pointing has to do with President Trump wanting to purchase Russian diesel fuel — and Ukraine targeting Russian refineries with American weapons, intelligence, and military assistance.

It’s obvious why Ukraine is attacking Russian refineries: Kill the Russian economy, and you kill the Russian war machine. (Or, perhaps, it puts Russia in a box where its only chance for victory is playing the nuclear card, but details-shmetails.)

It’s also obvious why European leaders have “recoiled” over Trump’s diesel purchase: They’re scared of Russia and want Americans to shoulder more of the sacrifice.

But it’s equally obvious why President Trump vehemently opposes the idea: American workers and American farmers need diesel. It fuels the engines that drive our economy.

Besides, European nations have purchased $320 billion in Russian hydrocarbons since 2022, so why the heck should Americans suffer more than Europeans? Sorry, but the Ukraine War isn’t happening on our continent.

President Trump campaigned on America First. Well, this IS America First!

And Zelensky doesn’t like it one bit:

Telegraph: Zelensky Turns on Trump

Ukraine struck a Russian oil refinery after Volodymyr Zelensky turned on Donald Trump, saying he was “done” with the president’s energy ceasefire.

Relations between the two leaders plunged to an all-time low after the Trump administration struck a deal to buy diesel from Vladimir Putin and reduce Ukraine’s access to the Starlink satellite system.

Mr Zelensky – who met Andy Burnham and the King in London on Wednesday – said in an interview published on Thursday morning: “The block [on attacking refineries] is out. We’re done.”

Hours later, Russia accused Ukraine of attacking an oil refinery in the city of Ryazan, about 120 miles south-east of Moscow, causing a fire.

Quick note to media editors: Please stop using “turns on” in your headlines when you really mean “disagrees with.” Maybe it’s the Gen X in me, but when I see “turns on,” that’s not where my mind goes:

(Apparently, Trump “turns on” Benjamin Netanyahu, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Ukraine, Giorgia Meloni, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Vivek Ramaswamy, Steve Bannon, New Yorkers, the European continent, and the entire media. Why, he’s human Viagra!)

Yet make no mistake, the collapse in U.S.-Ukrainian relations is deadly serious. The Russia-Ukraine casualty count is already in the millions. This is a dangerous, unpredictable war that could endanger American lives. The longer it festers, the more likely there’s spillover.

And if there’s spillover, European nations will be affected first.

But Ukraine is already bearing the brunt of it: 99.9% of the war is happening on Ukrainian soil. Vladimir Putin already controls 20% of Ukraine’s land — and because of Russia’s size, it has a big advantage in a war of attrition.

And once again, Zelensky doesn’t have the cards to back up his boasts.

All politicians have egos; world leaders even more so. And a world leader like Zelensky, who’s constantly been compared to the legendary Winston Churchill, almost certainly has quite the ego, too.

Because the Churchill-Zelensky comparisons are everywhere:

The New York Times: Zelensky and Churchill Are True Leaders
Forbes: Churchill and Zelensky Stand Up for Freedom
CBC: Why Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky Is a ‘Churchillian Figure’
The Independent: Volodymyr Zelensky Is the Heir to Churchill This Continent Needs
BBC: Volodymyr Zelensky Invokes Winston Churchill as He Appeals to MPs
Wall Street Journal: Churchill, Zelensky and the American Right
AP News: A Modern Churchill? Zelenskyy Praised as War Communicator
People Magazine: Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s Military Attire at the White House Draws Comparisons to Winston Churchill
Newsweek: Zelensky’s Congress Appearance Sparks Winston Churchill Comparisons
New York Post: George W. Bush Calls Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky the ‘Winston Churchill of Our Time’

And on a cursory level, the comparisons make sense: Zelensky, like Churchill, had to rally his nation during the dog days of war. They both inspired their countrymen with their rhetoric and bravery. And they both understood how vulnerable they were — and the necessity of international alliances.

Both Churchill and Zelensky pleaded to D.C. for a lifeline.

But here’s where both men differ — and this difference is striking: Churchill humbled himself, recognizing that England needed America more than America needed England. Furthermore, as the weaker partner in our alliance, it would be a mistake to demand too much too fast.

So he was patient.

England entered World War II on Sept. 3, 1939. The United States didn’t declare war on Germany until Dec. 11, 1941. That’s a gap of 830 days.

Churchill would’ve been ecstatic if America had joined World War II earlier!

But we didn’t. President Franklin Roosevelt waited until we were attacked at Pearl Harbor because American intervention wasn’t politically viable.

According to Gallup, when Germany invaded Poland, 96% of Americans opposed declaring war on Germany. By April 1941, 79% of Americans still opposed using our army to help the British.

Churchill, like Zelensky, had a helluva ego. Probably more so, because he was a British aristocrat who was raised in a world where the sun never set on the British Empire: England controlled 24% of all the land on earth — and 23% of the global population.

For centuries, running the planet was practically an English birthright!

Yet Churchill didn’t hesitate to humble himself before President Roosevelt. He stayed in the White House for 113 days. When FDR entered Churchill’s room and caught a glimpse of the British bulldog’s fleshy physique, instead of being offended, Churchill quipped, “The Prime Minister of Great Britain has nothing to hide from the President of the United States.”

Churchill understood that it wasn’t about his personal pride or national ego. That’s not why he was in Washington.

His goal was protecting and preserving the U.S.-English alliance at all costs.

Churchill played the long game — and it worked. Eventually, the U.S. joined World War II. Eventually, American soldiers, sailors, pilots, and marines were battling the Nazis and liberating Europe. And for most of the post-war period, the United Kingdom was the beneficiary of a “special relationship” with the United States — the planet’s premier superpower.

Sadly, Zelensky is no Churchill.

He puts short-term frustrations ahead of long-term interests. He doesn’t care about American political realities. He wants what he wants — and if we disagree, we’re siding with Putin.

The same liberals who howled with fury when George W. Bush said you’re either with the enemy or with us are applauding when Zelensky says the exact same thing!

But it’s counterproductive. Everyone already recognizes why Ukraine wants to attack Russian refineries. It’s not exactly a mystery: Ukraine benefits by injuring Russia’s capacity to fund its war effort. (Which is why European nations buying $320 billion worth of Russian gas, oil, and diesel — while asking Americans to make even more sacrifices — is so offensive.)

But threatening to destroy the global economy, to pressure foreign nations into making concessions, is eerily similar to Iran’s war strategy, and that’s a lousy way to build international alliances.

Zelensky isn’t an angel, and he isn’t a demon. He’s a Ukrainian nationalist. He has his national interests — and so do we.

This isn’t a complex, meta-level conspiracy theory. This isn’t a whodunit mystery novel. 

It’s competing national interests between VERY unequal partners.

Churchill succeeded because he aligned England’s interests with America. That was his #1 mission, goal, and objective. After all, his country was smaller, weaker, and more vulnerable. 

He did what he had to do to win the damn war.

Zelensky is trying to do the opposite. He wants America’s interests to align with Ukraine’s, and not the other way around. It’s the exact wrong strategy at the exact wrong time.

And he just failed his Churchill moment.

Sigh. What a turn-off.