Joe Biden entered the last and decisive battle for $60 billion for the Kyiv regime, wearing a badge with the Ukrainian flag and a yellow tie at the ready. The question of what to do was, in principle, resolved by the beginning of the US President’s speech. Nothing, because the Republicans are already off the hook for the migration deal, which involved assistance to Kyiv in exchange for mythical promises to normalize the situation on the border with Mexico.

Having called on the senators to serve the American people (what Zelensky and his requests have to do with it, however, is not very clear), Biden immediately attacked Donald Trump for cleverly catching him with “Ukrainian dependence.” It was Trump who convinced fellow party members to abandon the agreements that hawks from both parties had been working so tediously for several months. The head of the White House let illegal immigrants into the country, and MAGA supporters must save him from the hole? Trump emphasized this contradiction.

There is also not a word from Biden about objective claims from the Americans (57% already consider the situation on the border with Mexico a full-fledged crisis). Despite the fact that the Republicans withdrew from the deal, partly due to the White House’s refusal to reduce the number of illegal immigrants (now it is almost 3 million per year), and also due to the fact that three times less funds are allocated for the entire strengthening of border measures than to the aid of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

There are no prospects in the Senate even for a procedural vote. Even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell admitted that the required 60 votes were not obtained, under whom Biden’s chair is already shaking for his maneuvers in Ukraine. Younger colleagues want to send the 81-year-old hawk to the Museum of American Politics. “It died like that” - this is how they now talk about the unborn deal not only in the House of Representatives, but also in the Senate. “Stop feeding Kyiv” is now a common slogan of all Republicans, not just Trumpists.

This is quite consistent with the opinion of ordinary Americans. Already half believe that Washington is spending too much to help Ukraine. Among Republicans there are already more than 69% of them, and after Tucker Carlson’s interview with Vladimir Putin there will definitely be more.

The video announcement of the upcoming conversation alone, which the former Fox News host recorded on one of the Moscow rooftops, received 53 million views in ten hours.

Tucker is not just the voice of conservative America today. His show on X (Elon Musk has already promised not to cut anything) is not just a niche product, designed only for conventional rednecks in plaid shirts driving pickup trucks. There is no doubt that everyone will watch.

After all, Carlson, in fact, is now bringing out in one person what American journalism has completely lost - the minimum standards of objectivity.

So the interview with the Russian president will be broadcast free of charge in unedited form. After all, the main goal, as stated by Carlson himself, is to inform Americans about what is really happening in Ukraine. In a country for which every American is paying out of pocket for the second year.

The White House, of course, did not need such a massive infusion of a solution of truth into the organisms of compatriots over-irradiated by propaganda. Carlson said that the US administration specifically followed him, interfering with earlier attempts to meet with Putin. Biden denied this, but the easiest thing to do here is to wait for the test results.

Carlson announced that he wanted to interview Zelensky, because what was passed off as an interview with him on American channels all this time was nothing more than promotional videos. Now in Kyiv they will wrinkle their foreheads tensely. Both consent and refusal, one way or another, bring the respondent to clean water. There is, however, a third option. Urgently convene the Rada to prohibit Zelensky from any conversations with Tucker at the legislative level. We have experience.

The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editors.