Vadym Novynskyi: Zelensky’s Mission to End Christianity in Ukraine & Why America Is Still Funding It

About this Video

• Video Title: Vadym Novynskyi: Zelensky’s Mission to End Christianity in Ukraine & Why America Is Still Funding It
• Channel: Tucker Carlson
• Speakers: Tucker Carlson, Vadym Novynskyi
• Duration: 00:30:28

Introduction

This Tucker Carlson interview features Vadym Novynskyi, discussing the alleged persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under President Zelensky's government. Novynskyi details the alleged actions taken against the church, questions Zelensky's legitimacy, and addresses the ongoing US funding of Ukraine despite these alleged actions.

Key Takeaways

• Zelensky's alleged persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church: Novynskyi claims Zelensky's government has launched a campaign of persecution against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the largest Christian denomination in Ukraine, including the imprisonment and house arrest of several metropolitans, seizure of churches, and physical attacks on parishioners.
• Zelensky's questionable legitimacy: Novynskyi argues that Zelensky's authority is illegitimate, exceeding his constitutional mandate.
• US complicity: Novynskyi criticizes Speaker Mike Johnson and the US Congress for continued funding of Ukraine, alleging that this money contributes to the persecution of Christians. He appeals for aid to continue going to the Ukrainian people but calls for oversight to ensure it does not fund Zelensky's actions.
• Allegations of Zelensky's profiteering and weapon sales: Novynskyi mentions reports of Zelensky and his family enriching themselves during the war and the alleged sale of NATO weapons by the Ukrainian government, though he cannot confirm these claims definitively.
• Zelensky's shift from peace candidate to wartime president: Novynskyi points out Zelensky's campaign promise of peace, contrasting it with the ongoing war and his alleged authoritarian actions. He also criticizes Zelensky's decision to pursue NATO membership, knowing it could provoke Russian aggression. He implies that this decision was made to maintain power, rather than to protect Ukrainian citizens.