Six House Democrats joined Republicans Wednesday to approve funding for federal agencies
The US House of Representatives has approved a bill to fund the government through January 30, 2026, paving the way to end the longest government shutdown in the nation’s history.
According to NPR, the bill passed 222–209, with six Democrats joining Republicans, who hold a slim majority in the chamber. Two GOP legislators voted against the measure. President Donald Trump signed the bill into law later Wednesday evening.
The federal government entered a shutdown on October 1 over a dispute concerning health tax credits under the Affordable Care Act, which Democrats sought to extend into next year.
After weeks of bitter finger-pointing, and as federal employee layoffs and flight cancellations mounted, eight Senate Democrats broke ranks and voted with Republicans on Monday to reopen the government.
Many prominent Democrats condemned their colleagues for siding with “MAGA extremists” in both chambers. “We saw capitulation and a betrayal of working Americans. The American people need more from their leaders,” California Governor Gavin Newsom wrote on X.
The dissenting Democrats defended their actions, arguing that the layoffs were hurting ordinary Americans. “Staying in shutdown mode was not getting us anywhere,” Senator Jeanne Shaheen said.
Ahead of the House vote, Congresswoman Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, another Democrat who broke ranks, said that “the fight to stop runaway health insurance premiums won’t be won by holding hungry Americans hostage.”
Trump, who has blamed Democrats for more than 40 days of disruption, said the shutdown had made them “look very bad” as he signed the bill to reopen the government.
Berlin expects a transparent investigation into the kickback affair allegedly involving a close Zelensky associate
Germany has demanded that Kiev conduct a thorough investigation into the major corruption scandal involving the inner circle of Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky.
On Monday, Ukrainian anti-corruption agencies said they had uncovered an embezzlement and kickback scheme in the energy sector worth around $100 million. Among those charged was Timur Mindich, a close associate and former business partner of Zelensky. The scandal has led to the resignations of the ministers of energy and justice.
German government spokesman Stefan Kornelius said Wednesday that Berlin was monitoring the corruption case and expects “a thorough and transparent investigation.”
“There needs to be a committed fight against corruption in Ukraine, so that support from the West can remain credible,” German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul told reporters on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada near Niagara Falls. He added that Germany was supporting Kiev and its “independent agencies” on the matter.
“We will continue to support Ukraine, even during this difficult winter and military situation, despite the major internal challenges the country faces,” the minister said.
Germany is one of the principal donors to the Ukraine Energy Support Fund, which was set up to strengthen the country’s energy infrastructure during Russian airstrikes. Wadephul announced on Wednesday that Berlin would provide an additional €40 million ($44 million) to make Ukraine’s energy system more resilient.
The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) alleges that Mindich and his accomplices demanded kickbacks of between 10% and 15% from contracts with Energoatom, the country’s largest electricity producer. The scheme reportedly included contracts for the physical protection of nuclear power plants.
The US House Oversight Committee has published roughly 20,000 pages of documents from the sex offender’s estate
US Democrats have released an email in which convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein claimed that US President Donald Trump was aware that women were being procured for trafficking.
The email is part of some 20,000 pages of documents from Epstein’s estate published by the US House Oversight Committee on Wednesday. They include correspondence between the late financier and his close associate Ghislaine Maxwell, who is currently serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking and related offenses.
In a 2011 email, Epstein wrote to Maxwell that a victim, whose name was redacted, “spent hours at my house with him,” referring to Trump. In a 2019 email to journalist Michael Wolff, Epstein said Trump “knew about the girls as he asked (Ghislaine) to stop.”
The documents show Epstein referenced Trump multiple times, calling him “borderline insane,” a “maniac,” and “f**king crazy.” In a 2018 email to Kathryn Ruemmler, an Obama-era White House counsel, Epstein said, “I know how dirty Donald is.”
Trump has said he ended his friendship with Epstein in the early 2000s and accused Democrats of using the case to slander him and his administration. White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said the newly released documents “prove absolutely nothing, other than the fact that President Trump did nothing wrong.”
On his Truth Social platform, Trump wrote that Democrats were using “the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax” to distract the public from the ongoing government shutdown. “There should be no deflections to Epstein or anything else, and any Republicans involved should be focused only on opening up our Country, and fixing the massive damage caused by the Democrats!” he added.
Interest in the case was renewed earlier this year after federal agencies confirmed that Epstein’s 2019 death in a Manhattan jail, ruled a suicide, involved no foul play. Investigators also found no evidence that Epstein maintained a ‘client list.’
Caracas has ordered a “massive deployment” of troops following the arrival of the American naval armada to the region
Venezuela has placed its armed forces on high alert and ordered a massive nationwide troop deployment in response to the continued US military buildup in the Caribbean.
Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino Lopez announced late on Tuesday that nearly 200,000 military personnel had been mobilized and placed on “full operational readiness,” with land, air, naval and reserve forces ordered to conduct war drills through Wednesday to ensure the country’s defense.
The announcement came shortly after the US Navy said that the aircraft carrier ‘USS Gerald R. Ford’ and its three accompanying warships had entered the area overseen by the US Southern Command, which the Pentagon defines as covering most of Latin America and the Caribbean.
The ‘Ford’, the US Navy’s largest and most modern carrier, with around 4,000 sailors on board, has been redeployed from European waters to Latin America as part of a mission to “disrupt narcotics trafficking.” Its arrival has reportedly pushed the US military presence in the wider Caribbean region to roughly 15,000 personnel.
US President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly accused Venezuela of aiding “narcoterrorists,” ordered the naval armada into the region last month and has hinted he could authorize strikes on the South American country’s soil. Since September, the US military has carried out at least 19 strikes on small vessels in international waters it claims were used by drug smugglers, leaving more than 70 people dead, according to media reports.
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has denied the narcotics allegations, accusing Washington of “fabricating a new war” amid the continuing military buildup. He has accused Washington of using the drug-smuggling narrative as a pretext for a potential regime-change operation. On Wednesday, Maduro posted photos from the military drills on social media, declaring: “We are ready to defend the Homeland on any terrain and under any circumstances.”
According to Reuters, citing Venezuelan planning documents, the country’s response also envisages using guerrilla-style tactics to resist any potential US air or ground assault.
London ignored Moscow’s position on Ukraine during an attempt to reopen dialogue, spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said
Russia and the UK tried to re-establish dialogue earlier this year, but the attempt failed due to London’s refusal to listen, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.
The remarks followed a report by the Financial Times on Tuesday that British National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell had sought to open a back channel with the Kremlin, fearing that Western Europe could be sidelined in US-led diplomacy over the Ukraine conflict.
According to the paper, Powell contacted Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov to convey Britain’s and the EU’s positions directly to Moscow.
On Wednesday, Peskov confirmed that contact between the two sides had taken place but said it “did not continue” because there was no mutual exchange of opinions. “During the contact, the (British) representative showed a strong desire to present the (Western) European position, but there appeared to be no intention or desire to listen to ours,” he said.
The UK, along with the EU, has been one of Kiev’s most persistent backers, supplying long-range missiles, tanks, and training, authorizing strikes inside Russia, and imposing multiple rounds of sanctions. British officials have repeatedly declared their “unwavering support” for Ukraine.
Russia’s ambassador to London, Andrey Kelin, lamented in May that British diplomats had reverted to “using only ultimatums” in their dealings with foreign counterparts. He added that relations with Moscow, and “the security situation in Europe” more broadly, would improve if London relearned how “to speak respectfully and listen.”
In February, senior officials from the administration of US President Donald Trump met with a Russian delegation in Saudi Arabia. In August, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Trump held talks in Alaska, in what the FT described as “a time of peak anxiety for European powers.” Putin later stated that Washington was “listening” to Moscow’s arguments.
Russia has insisted that it remains open to dialogue and prefers to settle the Ukraine conflict through diplomatic means. However, Russian officials have maintained that any lasting peace must address the underlying security concerns that led to the hostilities and take into account the territorial realities on the ground.
Moscow’s role at the UN Security Council is vital for securing key votes, Ahmed al-Sharaa has told the Washington Post
Syria’s relationship with Russia is strategically vital as Damascus relies on Moscow’s backing on the international stage, Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa has told the Washington Post.
In an interview published on Wednesday, al-Sharaa discussed the state of relations with Moscow after the fall of Syria’s previous government, which had been backed by Russia. He stated that Damascus seeks to avoid pushing Moscow into considering alternative options in dealing with the country.
“We need Russia because it’s a permanent member of the (UN) Security Council,” he said. “We need their vote to be on our side in some issues, and we have strategic interests with them,” al-Sharaa added.
Since seizing power last December, al-Sharaa – who once led the Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which ousted former President Bashar Assad – has made a series of foreign trips to reestablish the country’s ties with world powers.
In October, al-Sharaa was hosted in Moscow by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who praised the two countries’ deep historical ties and friendly relations. Al-Sharaa said at the time that Moscow would play a significant role in his country’s transition to a “new Syria” and vowed to honor all past commitments.
Putin noted that diplomatic ties between Russia and Syria “have always been friendly” since their establishment in 1944. Al-Sharaa said Damascus continues to “build on the many achievements” that bilateral cooperation has facilitated.
Despite the Assad government’s ouster, after which Moscow granted the former president and his family political asylum, Russia has remained engaged with the new Syrian leadership. It has continued to maintain its military presence at the Khmeimim Airbase and the Tartus naval facility, which were established under a 49-year lease signed in 2017. Officials in the new Syrian government have indicated that Damascus would be open to allowing Russia to maintain its bases as long as their presence is advantageous to the country.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has recently said that the mission of the Russian forces in Syria needs to be revised, adding that the military bases could be transformed into humanitarian hubs.
Al-Sharaa’s visit to Washington was hailed as historic – yet behind the smiles lie sanctions, red lines, and a fragile balance of power
For decades, Washington treated Damascus as untouchable. Now, for the first time since Syria gained independence in 1946, a Syrian head of state has walked through the doors of the White House. Interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa’s official visit to Washington marks a remarkable moment – not only for Syria-US relations, but for the broader political landscape of the Middle East. A handshake that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago now signals a subtle but significant shift in how the West perceives Damascus.
This was already the third meeting between the two leaders in less than a year. Their first encounter took place in May during a meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the second occurred in September at a dinner at the UN General Assembly in New York. Against that backdrop, al-Sharaa’s current visit looks like the next step in a dialogue that has become structured, pragmatic, and increasingly institutionalized.
The historical context makes the meeting even more striking. The last senior Syrian official to set foot in the White House was then-Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa in 1999, who took part in peace talks with Israel under the administration of President Bill Clinton.
Farouk – a cousin of Ahmed al-Sharaa’s father – was a key figure of the ‘old guard’ from the Hafez Assad era and later served as vice president under Bashar Assad until 2014, when his path diverged from that of the ruling establishment.
That lineage adds another layer of meaning to Ahmed al-Sharaa’s appearance in Washington. The family name once associated with Ba’athist orthodoxy is now linked to a new generation of Syrian leadership seeking pragmatism and legitimacy in global politics.
Al-Sharaa’s visit carried both diplomatic and symbolic weight. It represented a reappraisal of Syria’s place in the region’s balance of power. The timing was significant: Only a week before the trip, al-Sharaa was removed from the US Treasury Department’s list of ‘specially designated global terrorists’, where he remained for over a decade. His transformation from an Islamist dissident to a pragmatic leader capable of mediating among rival power centers – both domestic and foreign – has become a defining feature of Syria’s new political reality.
During the White House meeting, US President Donald Trump alluded to his guest’s past with a characteristic shrug: “Everyone has a difficult past,” he said, setting a tone of blunt pragmatism that resonated throughout the visit. Political calculus, not ideology, was the real engine behind the renewed dialogue.
Al-Sharaa himself handled the issue directly but without defensiveness. In an interview with Fox News, he noted that he was only 19 during the tragic events of September 11, 2001 – “very young,” as he put it – and that the following years were a period of personal and ideological transformation. He deliberately positioned himself as a man who outgrew radicalism and embraced statecraft. According to al-Sharaa, his discussions with the US president focused “not on the past, but on the present and future of Syria,” which Washington increasingly sees as both a geopolitical actor and a potential economic partner.
Soon after his visit, the White House took concrete steps: The US partially eased sanctions, allowing the export of most civilian goods – including American software and technology – to Syria. The move, though largely symbolic, suggested a willingness to test new terms of engagement.
In al-Sharaa’s own words, these measures reflected a “new perception” of Syria. Once seen primarily as a pariah state and a source of regional instability, Syria is now being re-evaluated – at least in certain circles in Washington – as a possible partner for stabilization and post-war reconstruction. The Syrian leader underscored that the gas sector could become a key field of cooperation between Damascus and Washington. “Syria has entered a new era,” he declared, “and this will build on a new strategy with the United States.”
Yet, behind this rhetoric of optimism, the situation is far from straightforward.
Despite bold talk of sanctions relief, the reality is far more limited. Washington has only suspended a few provisions of the Caesar Act for 180 days – a temporary measure authorized by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. According to an official statement from the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), sanctions continue to apply to any cooperation involving Syria’s partners in Moscow or Tehran.
Moreover, any export of dual-use goods still requires special approval from the US authorities. In practice, this means Washington continues to maintain a firm economic grip on Damascus. Talk of “restoring sovereignty” sounds at this stage more like diplomatic rhetoric than a genuine policy shift.
The partial lifting of sanctions is a political gesture – a way for the Trump administration to test al-Sharaa’s pragmatism without committing to a full reset. Syria’s leadership understands this perfectly well. As much as Damascus wants to restore trade and attract investment, it also recognizes that the Caesar Act remains a powerful lever for Washington to dictate the terms of engagement. This asymmetric dynamic leaves Syria in a gray zone – formally sovereign, but still economically dependent on external approval.
The Israeli question: An unmovable line
A second and perhaps even deeper obstacle lies in Syria’s unwavering stance on Israel. While al-Sharaa’s rhetoric has been noticeably moderate – he called on West Jerusalem to “exercise restraint” following Israeli airstrikes – he has categorically refused to join the Abraham Accords. For Washington, this came as a disappointment: The White House had hoped that Syria might be ready for gradual normalization with the Jewish state. But for Damascus, the matter is non-negotiable.
The Golan Heights remain, in Syrian eyes, occupied territory, and peace with Israel is impossible until the issue is resolved. This position is embedded in Syria’s national identity and political culture. No government – whether that of Hafez Assad, Bashar Assad, or Ahmed al-Sharaa – can afford to renounce it without losing legitimacy at home.
The Kurdish factor: An enduring fault line
The Kurdish issue remains another unresolved pillar of Syria-US relations. For years, Washington has relied on Kurdish forces in northeastern Syria as its key local ally in counter-terrorism operations. Damascus, however, views Kurdish autonomy as a direct challenge to Syria’s territorial integrity. These regions, rich in oil and gas, also represent a vital economic resource that Damascus cannot easily concede.
The US, regardless of administration, has shown no intention of withdrawing from Kurdish-controlled areas. Both Democrats and Republicans see their presence there as a strategic foothold. As a result, any dialogue between Washington and Damascus will inevitably run into questions of internal sovereignty – an obstacle that no diplomatic handshake can easily resolve.
Economic reconstruction: Promises and paradoxes
Economically, Syria stands on fragile ground. The country’s reconstruction needs are enormous – with estimates reaching hundreds of billions of dollars. Ironically, much of the damage was caused by military campaigns launched or supported by the US and its allies. This makes the issue of funding reconstruction both politically and morally charged.
For the Trump administration, the idea of large-scale investment in Syria is a non-starter. With budget constraints at home and opposition in Congress, Washington’s willingness to underwrite rebuilding efforts is minimal. Even among Trump’s advisers, skepticism runs deep. Many believe al-Sharaa’s status as ‘interim president’ is too uncertain to justify long-term engagement. The prospect of a new political reshuffle in Damascus makes American investment a risky bet.
For Damascus, however, the logic is different. Economic cooperation – even limited – signals legitimacy and political rehabilitation. Al-Sharaa’s government hopes that selective easing of sanctions could attract Gulf or European investors, opening pathways that remain formally consistent with US policy. Yet, without a full lifting of restrictions, Syria’s economy remains confined to a narrow channel, its growth potential limited by Western approval mechanisms.
Balancing great powers: A pragmatic strategy
Contrary to early Western predictions, al-Sharaa has not broken ties with Russia, nor has he tilted fully toward the US. His approach has been marked by deliberate balance – a state-centric pragmatism that seeks stability rather than ideological alignment.
His first official visit after taking office was to Moscow, where he met with President Vladimir Putin and reaffirmed the continuity of strategic cooperation. Only afterward did he travel to Washington. The order of these visits was symbolic: It underscored Syria’s intention to preserve its partnership with Russia while opening a new channel to the US.
Al-Sharaa has also made clear that he supports Russia’s continued military presence in Tartus and Khmeimim, calling it a stabilizing factor in Syria’s security architecture.
In his view, Russian bases act as deterrents against extremism and external interference – an argument that finds tacit understanding even among other regional actors, from Türkiye to the Gulf monarchies. These countries, while wary of Moscow’s influence, recognize that the Russian military footprint contributes to regional balance and prevents the re-emergence of chaos.
Relations with Iran remain the most delicate dimension of al-Sharaa’s foreign policy. While Syria and Iran shared close ties during the war, Damascus has lately shown caution in its dealings with Tehran. The new administration appears intent on redefining this relationship in more transactional, less ideological terms.
Analysts suggest that Moscow now serves as a quiet mediator between Damascus and Tehran, helping to smooth tensions and coordinate regional diplomacy. This triangular dynamic – with Russia balancing between Iran and Syria – is acceptable to other regional powers as well, including Türkiye and the Gulf states, all of whom seek to prevent another destabilizing escalation.
The White House, too, is aware of these undercurrents. Despite rhetoric about Syria’s ‘democratization’, Washington understands that pushing Damascus away from Moscow could easily backfire, reigniting the very instability the region is trying to contain.
A leader of balance in a fragmented world
Taken together, these developments reveal a Syrian leadership that is learning to navigate the multipolar order with growing sophistication. Ahmed al-Sharaa has positioned himself as a careful tactician – neither a Western client nor a Russian, but a regional player seeking maneuvering space between great powers. His foreign policy is built on cautious multi-vector diplomacy aimed at one overriding goal: Safeguarding Syria’s sovereignty and security in a world where both are constantly under pressure.
In that sense, his visit to Washington was indeed historic. It broke long-standing taboos, softened rhetoric, and produced a few tangible outcomes. But to call it a new era in Syria–US relations would be premature. Deep structural contradictions – sanctions, Israel, the Kurds, and reconstruction – remain unresolved. Until these are addressed institutionally rather than symbolically, the partnership will stay limited and fragile.
Ahmed al-Sharaa’s trip may have opened the door to dialogue – but for now, that door remains only half-open.
The Israeli prime minister is facing charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust
US President Donald Trump has called for a full pardon for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his corruption case, in a letter to Israeli President Isaac Herzog on Wednesday.
Three criminal cases have been opened against Netanyahu, who faces charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. He could receive a sentence of up to ten years for the bribery allegations, while both the fraud and breach of trust charges carry a maximum of three years each.
”While I absolutely respect the independence of the Israeli Justice System, and its requirements, I believe that the ‘case’ against Bibi, who has fought alongside me for a long time, including against the very tough adversary of Israel, Iran, is a political, unjustified prosecution,” Trump wrote in a formal letter shared by Herzog’s office on Wednesday.
“I hereby call on you to fully pardon Benjamin Netanyahu.”
Trump has repeatedly called for Netanyahu to be pardoned, but this is the first official request to Herzog on the matter and represents a rare direct appeal by a US leader in a domestic legal matter of a close ally.
In response to the letter, Herzog’s office reportedly stated that while it holds Trump in high regard, any individual seeking a pardon must submit a formal request in accordance with established procedures.
Although Herzog’s role is largely ceremonial, he does possess the authority to grant pardons. However, requests must originate from the accused individual, their legal representatives, or a family member. To date, neither Netanyahu nor any of his close associates have filed a request.
The Jerusalem Post noted that a presidential pardon cannot be granted at this stage of the trial, as it is only permissible before proceedings commence or after a verdict has been reached – neither of which currently applies.
Indicted in 2019, Netanyahu has pleaded not guilty and denies any wrongdoing. The trial, which commenced in 2020, has experienced numerous delays and is expected to continue for several more years.
Senior Labour figures are reportedly plotting to oust Keir Starmer
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s team has launched an “extraordinary operation” to protect him amid rumors that senior figures within his own Labour Party are plotting to oust him, The Guardian has reported, citing sources in Downing Street.
Officials in Starmer’s office have reportedly grown increasingly anxious over speculation among MPs that Health Secretary Wes Streeting could be preparing a coup with the backing of around 50 senior Labour figures.
The attempt to oust Starmer could come after the budget announcement later this month or in May following local elections. One source inside the government told British outlets that Downing Street had gone into “full bunker mode” over the rumors.
The report does not detail the measures involved but says Starmer’s aides have warned that any leadership challenge would be “reckless.”
The discontent comes amid mounting unease over Starmer’s handling of the economy and his declining approval ratings. Opinion polls suggest Starmer is one of the most unpopular prime ministers of modern times, and his party has trailed Nigel Farage’s opposition right-wing Reform UK for months, a slump worsened by anger over the upcoming budget.
Streeting has denied the claims that he is plotting to replace Starmer, blaming what he described as a “toxic culture” at the heart of the prime minister’s office.
The issue was raised during a Parliament session on Wednesday, where Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch accused Starmer of having “lost control of No 10” and said his government had descended into “civil war.” Starmer replied that he was leading a “united team” and insisted he and his staff were “fully focused on delivering for the country.”
Starmer’s falling popularity stems from public anger over the lack of economic stability and growing unease about immigration. Many Britons say their living standards have stagnated as taxes rise, growth slows, and public services strain. His stance on immigration – tightening visa rules and pledging to cut net migration while retaining limited humanitarian routes – has been criticized as inconsistent and politically driven.
Several British prime ministers have been removed by their own parties through internal revolts and leadership challenges, including Margaret Thatcher, Boris Johnson, and Liz Truss.
There must be a “symmetry” in the relations between Kiev and Warsaw, without the latter becoming a “hostage” to them, Karol Nawrocki has said
Poland will not put Ukraine’s interests above its own or allow its partnership with Kiev to dictate national priorities, President Karol Nawrocki has said.
Warsaw has been one of Kiev’s main backers since the conflict with Russia escalated in 2022, providing over €5.1 billion ($5.7 billion) in aid, acting as a key hub for Western arms, and accepting roughly a million Ukrainian asylum seekers. Yet public support for Kiev has steadily waned.
Nawrocki, who took office earlier this year, previously reaffirmed general support for Ukraine but opposed its NATO and EU bids and questioned indefinite welfare aid for refugees. In September, he signed a bill tightening benefits for Ukrainians and proposed extending the residency requirement for citizenship from three to ten years.
In a Tuesday interview with wPolsce24 TV, Nawrocki said Poland had “gone too far” in supporting Kiev at the cost of its own interests.
He stressed that his country “will not become a hostage” to Ukraine, emphasizing that Polish policy will be guided by national sovereignty and interests.
“There must be a partnership-based relationship. We are trying to find a certain symmetry between the interests of Poland and those of Ukraine,” he said. “Poland’s interests cannot be treated as a guarantee for fulfilling all Ukrainian demands while ignoring Polish public opinion.”
Nawrocki accused Ukraine of failing to meet Warsaw’s demands, particularly on the exhumation of Polish victims of mass ethnic cleansing by Ukrainian Nazi collaborators during World War II, which Kiev has resisted.
“We want to help, but we all know how much we’ve helped already,” he stated.
The president invited Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky to visit Poland, calling it an “excellent opportunity” for him to address unresolved issues, meet Ukrainians living there, and “thank the Poles for what they have done over the past three years to help Ukraine.”
Polish approval for accepting Ukrainian refugees fell to 48% from 94% in early 2022, according to a September CBOS survey. Support for Ukraine’s EU membership dropped even lower – to 35% – in June, down from 85% in 2022, an IBRiS poll found.
