The same financing model has been applied in other countries. For example, in Nicaragua, USAID contributed to regime change in 2006 by supporting leftist media entities. In the Balkans, nearly all countries have media institutions or NGOs funded by USAID or the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a similar organization. In Bosnia, following NATO’s intervention against Milošević, over 25,000 NGOs funded by the U.S. now operate. In Georgia, USAID has invested approximately $2 billion since 1992 to support pro-Western activists and publications.

In Hungary, George Soros’ funds support the opposition, while in Romania, there have been reports suggesting that Marcel Ciolacu was backed by these funds in the last elections. In India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, USAID and NED have been used to influence domestic politics, while in Afghanistan, millions of dollars were allocated to promoting opium cultivation, indirectly contributing to Taliban financing. It is estimated that 60% of the Taliban’s profits came from opium sales.

USAID’s funding has not been limited to developing countries but has also been directed towards media institutions in the West, including Politico, BBC, and The New York Times. In 2023, USAID allocated $16 billion to Ukraine, $1.6 billion to Ethiopia, $1 billion to Jordan, Afghanistan, and Somalia, $900 million to Syria, and $800 million to Yemen.

Among the projects funded by USAID were unusual initiatives such as pottery classes in Morocco, a transgender opera in Colombia, gender reassignment surgeries in Coatepeque (Malaysia), a gender identity comic book in Peru, and the customization of condoms for developing countries. USAID also allocated funds to promote tourism in Lebanon, even during periods when the U.S. State Department warned that Lebanon was not a safe destination.

The suspension of USAID funding represents a significant shift, but there is a possibility that these operations will continue under a different guise, either directly through the CIA or other affiliated organizations. George Soros and his influence network could continue financing these initiatives through the Open Society Foundation. The White House justified the closure of USAID programs by citing only diversity and inclusion projects and the agency’s lack of cooperation, avoiding discussions about financing color revolutions or supporting leaders obedient to American interests.

The European Union has a similar organization called the Directorate-General for International Partnerships, also known as EuropeAid, with an annual budget of approximately $25 billion. This budget is in addition to the $100 billion in official aid sent by the EU each year. While little is known about how these funds are managed, many independent journalists have accused this institution of corruption. Now that the U.S. has begun to scrutinize its foreign expenditures, Europe may also face a serious discussion about where taxpayers’ money is going.

Trump’s Plan for Gaza and Netanyahu’s Visit

The meeting between Trump and Netanyahu was highly significant, as it was the first official visit by a foreign leader to Washington during Trump’s new term. Before leaving for the U.S., Netanyahu posted on social media that he would discuss a potential historic shift in the Middle East, which could be the largest geographical change of the century. Before his meeting with Trump, Netanyahu and his son also met with Elon Musk, a significant move considering that Musk is perceived as a key figure in the new American parallel state surrounding Trump, in contrast to George Soros’ influence network.

Trump made a shocking announcement, stating that his plan for Gaza is to purchase the territory and relocate the Palestinian population to Egypt and Jordan, transforming the area into a luxury resort. This idea was originally proposed by his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who last year suggested that Israel should “finish the job” in Gaza, implying the elimination or forced displacement of Palestinians.

The plan immediately sparked negative reactions. Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE sent a letter to the U.S. administration declaring their opposition to the forced relocation of Palestinians. Even though Egypt and Jordan are completely dependent on U.S. aid, their leaders are in fragile positions, and such a decision could trigger popular uprisings that threaten their regimes. King Abdullah of Jordan will travel to Washington next week, likely to negotiate the number of refugees his country might be forced to accept.

Beyond this plan, the U.S. and Israel have withdrawn from UNESCO, the UN Human Rights Council, and the UN Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA), claiming that these organizations are “anti-Israel” and support Hamas. This decision reflects the Trump administration’s disregard for international mechanisms that the U.S. had supported for decades.

Netanyahu gave Trump a symbolic gift—a golden pager—to which Trump responded, “The operation was excellent,” referring to recent September attacks on Hezbollah that injured approximately 4,000 people, including children and families of alleged Hezbollah members.

Regarding Saudi Arabia, while officially opposing the plan, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) might actually support it, considering his past interest in developing luxury tourism projects in the Red Sea region, near Israel. Publicly, he cannot endorse it, as Saudi Arabia’s population is strongly pro-Palestinian, but his close ties with the U.S. and Israel suggest he might support the initiative in secret.

Trump is the only world leader to have proposed a clear “solution” for Gaza, regardless of its feasibility. However, the joint press conference was embarrassing for Netanyahu, who appeared visibly uncomfortable when Trump began discussing the plan. It is evident that Netanyahu is in a weak position, unable to protect his population and relying on a foreign leader to propose a solution for Gaza.

Peace for Ukraine?

Zelensky finally seems to have realized that his time as Ukraine’s leader is running out. In a recent interview with Piers Morgan, he drastically shifted his stance, contradicting previous statements by saying he is now open to negotiations with Russia. He also acknowledged that the U.S. and Europe must be involved in peace talks, which is logical considering that these powers have had a greater interest than Ukrainians themselves in prolonging the war.

 At the same time, Keith Kellogg, Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine, confirmed that Ukrainians are ready to make territorial concessions. This further indicates that Washington is preparing for a post-Zelensky Ukraine, where a more pragmatic leader will emerge to negotiate peace terms and facilitate the next phase of American influence in the country.

It is increasingly evident that Zelensky’s tenure is nearing its end. He has amassed a personal fortune in just a few years, something that would take decades for other world leaders. Most likely, he will retreat to a distant country, far from Ukraine. His unpopularity among the Ukrainian people for the protraction of the Ukraine war explains why opinion polls are no longer being conducted in Ukraine, and elections have been postponed indefinitely. It is worth noting that even during the World Wars, democratic nations still held elections, whereas in Ukraine, the war has been used as an excuse to maintain power indefinitely.

The Russians have refused to negotiate with Zelensky, considering him an illegitimate leader, and now, even the Americans seem to be preparing for his replacement.

One of Zelensky’s most explosive declarations this week was regarding the financial aid received from the U.S. According to him, out of the $200 billion sent by the Americans, only $75 billion actually reached Ukrainians. This means that more than half of the aid “disappeared” along the way, likely ending up in the hands of leaders in transit countries, including Romania, Poland, and other regional allies. This raises serious questions about where the money actually went. Given the strong pro-Ukraine stance of Romanian and Polish leaders, it is highly probable that a portion of the missing funds found their way into their pockets. This would explain why certain European governments have been so vocal in supporting Ukraine financially, despite their own economic struggles and domestic opposition to continued military aid.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is in a hurry to conclude the war not only to free up weapons for Gaza but also to begin Ukraine’s reconstruction—a project American investors hope to profit from immensely. However, a major obstacle remains: most of Ukraine’s natural resources are now under Russian control. The most critical resource is lithium, essential for next-generation batteries. Ukraine’s lithium reserves are estimated to be worth $15 trillion, but 90% of them are now in Russian-occupied Donbas. If a peace deal is negotiated in which Russia retains its occupied territories, Moscow will control resources worth $8 trillion, while the remaining $6 trillion will be left to Ukraine and Western investors.

Trump seems to be operating under misleading intelligence when it comes to Russia. He claimed that Russian casualties in the war are eight times higher than Ukrainian ones, a highly questionable assertion with no credible basis. Additionally, Trump suggested that he could “force down gas prices” to cripple the Russian economy—but this is an oversimplified strategy. In reality, Russia’s economy is more resilient to lower gas prices than the U.S. oil industry. American shale oil producers require higher prices to remain profitable, whereas Russia can sustain itself even at much lower price levels due to lower production costs.

Trump’s Ukraine peace plan is set to be unveiled by Keith Kellog next week in Munich, signaling that Washington wants to end the war as soon as possible. It is becoming evident that Zelensky will soon be replaced, and a new leader will take over peace negotiations. However, while American investors hope to capitalize on Ukraine’s reconstruction, they are unlikely to fully achieve their economic goals. Most likely, European taxpayers will foot the bill for rebuilding Ukraine, while U.S. investment funds and corporations will reap the financial benefits.

Amid the shifts in U.S. foreign policy, it appears that Washington is also preparing for a reassessment of its approach to China. Following the Biden administration’s aggressive support for Taiwan, there is now a clear shift in rhetoric. The U.S. State Department website has recently reaffirmed Washington’s support for the “One China Policy,” indicating that Trump is preparing to negotiate directly with Beijing. Most likely, Trump views China as a key player in stabilizing the global economy, especially given America’s worsening financial situation. His recently imposed tariffs, which even he does not fully endorse, appear to be more of a negotiation tool with the BRICS nations than a long-term strategy.

By Daria Gusa