THE CLAIM
In a video about the war in Ukraine, Katie Hopkins confidently predicts what is going to happen after Donald Trump’s return to the White House.
She tells viewers:
“Three things that we can expect to happen next with the war in Ukraine.”
Her first prediction is remarkably specific:
“Trump, in his first hundred days in office, will have ended the war.”
Hopkins says Trump will therefore have:
“honoured that pledge.”
She then claims European leaders will try to steal the credit for Trump’s success.
Hopkins goes considerably further when discussing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
She says:
“He was always a puppet. He was fully paid for. That’s why he’s a billionaire now.”
She claims that other people:
“funded him”
and:
“created a political party for him to lead”
and says his television programme was deliberately:
“overpromoted”
in order to put him:
“into the minds of Ukrainians as a leader”.
Finally, Hopkins predicts that Zelenskyy’s “usefulness” has expired and describes a bizarre hypothetical scenario in which he is found dead, padlocked inside a North Face bag in a bath.
She concludes:
“That’s what’s going to happen next.”
Enough time has now passed to check these claims against reality.
And the results are not kind to Hopkins’ predictions.
WATCH THE ORIGINAL VIDEO
Katie Hopkins’ original video can be watched here:
CLAIM 1: TRUMP WOULD END THE WAR WITHIN HIS FIRST 100 DAYS
This is the easiest claim to check because Hopkins attached a measurable deadline to it.
She said:
“Trump, in his first hundred days in office, will have ended the war.”
He didn’t.
Donald Trump returned to the presidency on 20 January 2025.
His first 100 days ended on 29 April 2025.
The war did not end.
Not only did it fail to end within Trump’s first 100 days, it continued throughout the remainder of 2025 and well into 2026.
As of 5 September 2026 — more than a year after Hopkins’ deadline expired — Russia and Ukraine are still at war.
Russian and Ukrainian forces are still conducting military operations.
People are still being killed.
And the Trump administration is still trying to negotiate the peace that Hopkins confidently told her viewers would already have happened within Trump’s first 100 days.
Indeed, on 5 September 2026 Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner arrived in Moscow for yet another attempt to negotiate an end to the conflict.
They are expected to travel on to Kyiv.
You don’t need a complicated political analysis to fact-check Hopkins’ prediction.
She predicted an event.
She gave it a deadline.
The deadline passed.
The event did not happen.
CLAIM 2: TRUMP WOULD HAVE “HONOURED” HIS CAMPAIGN PLEDGE
Hopkins says that by ending the war within his first 100 days Trump:
“will have honoured that pledge.”
Again, he didn’t.
Trump repeatedly claimed before returning to office that he could end the Ukraine war extremely rapidly.
At various times he famously suggested that he could settle it within 24 hours.
Whether that was intended literally or as political hyperbole, Hopkins removed any ambiguity by supplying her own test:
100 days.
By Hopkins’ own standard, Trump failed.
The extraordinary thing about this section of the video is its certainty.
Hopkins isn’t saying that Trump might end the war.
She isn’t saying that he has a better chance of negotiating peace.
She tells viewers that he WILL have ended it.
Reality supplied the fact-check.
CLAIM 3: EUROPEAN LEADERS HAD DONE “NOTHING BUT PERPETUATING THE PROBLEM”
Hopkins describes the previous three years as involving:
“impotent leaders doing nothing but perpetuating the problem.”
That is political rhetoric rather than a meaningful factual description of what European governments actually did.
European governments supplied Ukraine with weapons, ammunition, air-defence systems, financial assistance and humanitarian support.
They also imposed sanctions on Russia, supported Ukrainian refugees and participated in repeated diplomatic initiatives.
One can reasonably argue about whether those policies were wise.
One can argue that supplying weapons prolonged the war.
One can argue the opposite: that withholding weapons would simply have enabled Russia to conquer more Ukrainian territory.
Those are legitimate political arguments.
What cannot reasonably be said is that European countries literally did “nothing”.
By 2025 Europe had collectively allocated more military aid to Ukraine than the United States.
And when US assistance largely stopped following Trump’s return to office, European governments substantially increased their support.
Describing all of that as “doing nothing” isn’t analysis.
It’s rhetoric.
CLAIM 4: ABOUT $200 BILLION OF AID HAD BEEN “SENT BY EVERY COUNTRY”
Hopkins refers vaguely to:
“200 billion dollars of aid being sent by every country”.
This is too imprecise to be a useful description of Ukraine assistance.
There is no single pot of money called “aid sent by every country”.
Different datasets measure different things.
They distinguish between money appropriated by governments, commitments, allocations, military equipment, humanitarian assistance, financial assistance and money actually transferred to Ukraine.
For example, the US Congress had appropriated approximately $174 billion in Ukraine-related supplemental funding by January 2025.
But not all of that was simply a cheque handed to Zelenskyy or the Ukrainian government.
Significant expenditure occurred in the United States, including replacing US military stocks and funding American defence-related activities.
European countries and EU institutions have separately provided very substantial support.
So throwing out “$200 billion” without defining what is being counted tells viewers remarkably little.
CLAIM 5: EUROPE COULD HAVE “SORTED IT BEFORE”
Hopkins’ argument about Starmer, Macron and other European leaders is:
“If it were true, they would have sorted it before.”
This simply does not follow.
A war between two sovereign states cannot necessarily be “sorted” by a third country’s prime minister or president.
Russia invaded Ukraine.
Russia and Ukraine have incompatible positions over territory, security arrangements and Ukraine’s future relationship with NATO and the West.
Diplomatic leverage also changes over time as battlefield conditions, governments, military capabilities and economic circumstances change.
The fact that a politician participates in negotiations that eventually succeed would not prove that the same politician could have produced exactly the same agreement several years earlier.
That is not how international negotiations work.
Indeed, Hopkins’ own argument creates an awkward problem for her.
If failure to end the war previously proves that Starmer and Macron are ineffective, what does Trump’s failure to end it during his first 100 days prove?
By September 2026, Trump’s administration is still negotiating.
Using Hopkins’ own logic, we could simply ask:
If Trump could have “sorted it”, why hasn’t he?
CLAIM 6: ZELENSKYY IS A BILLIONAIRE
Hopkins then moves from questionable political analysis into an unsupported factual claim.
She says of Zelenskyy:
“He was fully paid for. That’s why he’s a billionaire now.”
There is no credible evidence that Volodymyr Zelenskyy is a billionaire.
Claims that Zelenskyy secretly accumulated an enormous fortune have circulated repeatedly online since Russia’s full-scale invasion.
They have included supposed luxury properties, yachts, private jets and enormous offshore fortunes.
Many of these claims have been debunked.
There are legitimate questions about Zelenskyy’s pre-presidential business interests.
The Pandora Papers revealed offshore companies associated with Zelenskyy and his business partners.
That is a real matter of public record and perfectly legitimate to scrutinise.
But “Zelenskyy had offshore business interests” and “Zelenskyy is a billionaire” are not the same proposition.
Public estimates of his wealth have placed it in the tens of millions of dollars, not anywhere remotely approaching the billion-dollar threshold.
If Hopkins has evidence demonstrating that Zelenskyy possesses assets worth more than $1 billion, she doesn’t provide it.
Simply declaring somebody a billionaire does not make them one.
CLAIM 7: “HE WAS FULLY PAID FOR”
Hopkins doesn’t merely claim Zelenskyy is rich.
She tells viewers:
“He was always a puppet. He was fully paid for.”
Paid by whom?
How much?
For what?
Through what mechanism?
What evidence demonstrates that payment?
None is provided.
“Puppet” is a political insult unless Hopkins identifies the supposed puppet master and produces evidence showing that Zelenskyy was acting under that person’s control.
Likewise, saying somebody was “fully paid for” strongly implies corruption or secret financial control.
That requires evidence.
Hopkins supplies none.
She simply moves from assertion to assertion as though repetition substitutes for proof.
CLAIM 8: SOMEBODY “CREATED A POLITICAL PARTY FOR HIM TO LEAD”
This is a particularly interesting distortion because there is a genuine story underneath it.
Zelenskyy really was a television comedian and actor before becoming president.
He starred in the Ukrainian television series “Servant of the People”, playing an ordinary teacher who unexpectedly becomes president of Ukraine.
A real political party called Servant of the People was subsequently created.
Zelenskyy then became its presidential candidate.
That extraordinary transition from fictional television president to actual president is true.
But Hopkins adds an unidentified “they”.
She says Zelenskyy was:
“playing a politician for the people who funded him, who created a political party for him to lead, who put him into the minds of Ukrainians as a leader”.
Who are “the people”?
Hopkins doesn’t say.
Who supposedly paid him to become president?
She doesn’t say.
What evidence proves this operation?
She doesn’t provide any.
There is a substantial difference between explaining how celebrity and television exposure helped a political candidate and alleging that unidentified people secretly created and controlled that candidate.
Hopkins jumps straight from the first proposition to the second.
CLAIM 9: HIS TV PROGRAMME PUT HIM “INTO THE MINDS OF UKRAINIANS AS A LEADER”
This contains a kernel of truth wrapped in conspiracy.
Of course Zelenskyy’s television career helped make him famous.
And starring in a hugely popular television programme in which he literally played the president inevitably contributed to his public image before entering real politics.
That is hardly a secret.
But voters knew Zelenskyy was an actor.
“Servant of the People” was a television comedy, not a covert broadcast pretending Zelenskyy genuinely governed Ukraine.
When Zelenskyy subsequently stood for president, Ukrainians voted in an actual election.
In the second round of the 2019 presidential election he received roughly 73% of the vote.
More than 13 million Ukrainians voted for him.
His television career unquestionably contributed to his political success.
It doesn’t follow that those millions of voters had somehow been programmed into electing a secretly controlled puppet.
CLAIM 10: ZELENSKYY’S DANCING AND HIGH HEELS TELL US SOMETHING ABOUT HIS ABILITY TO GOVERN
Hopkins then refers to:
“material of him dancing at parties or dressed in latex in high heels”
before saying:
“that’s more of his, you know, what he’s actually there for. That’s his talent, if you will and if he does have one.”
Zelenskyy’s previous career as an entertainer isn’t hidden information.
He was an actor, comedian, television producer and performer.
Footage of a comedian performing in costumes before entering politics proves that the comedian once performed in costumes.
It does not establish that he is corrupt.
It does not establish that he is controlled by somebody else.
It does not establish that his election was illegitimate.
And it certainly doesn’t establish that he is a billionaire.
Hopkins substitutes ridicule for evidence.
CLAIM 11: ZELENSKYY’S “USEFULNESS HAS EXPIRED”
Hopkins says:
“Now his usefulness has expired. He is now past his expiry date.”
This isn’t really a fact capable of verification.
It’s a prediction based upon Hopkins’ unsupported premise that Zelenskyy was somebody else’s puppet in the first place.
But there is an obvious factual problem with the broader prediction.
As of September 2026, Zelenskyy remains President of Ukraine and remains directly involved in negotiations concerning the future of his country.
Trump’s representatives are expected to travel to Kyiv as part of the latest US diplomatic initiative.
Whatever one’s opinion of Zelenskyy, describing him as having already become irrelevant was premature.
CLAIM 12: THE EXTRAORDINARY DEATH “PREDICTION”
The video then takes a much darker turn.
Hopkins says she would:
“never wish ill of anyone”
and:
“never wish violence on anyone”.
She immediately follows that disclaimer with an elaborate hypothetical description of Zelenskyy being discovered dead, locked inside a bag, padlocked from the outside and left in a bath with the heating turned up.
She then suggests that people would nevertheless announce:
“no suspicious circumstances”
and that Zelenskyy had died:
“from natural causes”.
She finishes the video by saying:
“That’s what’s going to happen next.”
There is no factual evidence offered for this extraordinary prediction.
It is not a serious assessment of Ukrainian politics.
It isn’t evidence that anybody intends to assassinate Zelenskyy.
And describing an obviously suspicious hypothetical death while suggesting that authorities would cover it up does not become evidence of a conspiracy simply because it is delivered as dark humour.
Most importantly for a fact-check, it didn’t validate any of Hopkins’ preceding claims.
It simply adds another unsupported prediction to a video already full of them.
WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED?
The benefit of revisiting this video is that we no longer have to speculate about Hopkins’ principal prediction.
She told viewers what would happen.
Trump would end the war within his first 100 days.
He would fulfil his promise.
European politicians would then try to steal the credit.
Zelenskyy’s usefulness would expire.
That future did not arrive.
Trump passed 100 days in office without ending the war.
He passed a year in office without ending the war.
And on 5 September 2026, his representatives are still travelling between Moscow and Kyiv trying to negotiate an agreement.
Meanwhile, the fighting continues.
Hopkins wasn’t reporting a fact when she said Trump would end the war.
She was making a prediction.
And she was wrong.
CONCLUSION
There is nothing wrong with Katie Hopkins supporting Donald Trump.
There is nothing wrong with believing that Trump’s approach to Russia and Ukraine is preferable to Joe Biden’s, Keir Starmer’s or Emmanuel Macron’s.
There is nothing wrong with criticising Western aid to Ukraine.
And there is nothing wrong with criticising Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Those are political opinions.
But opinions do not transform unsupported factual assertions into facts.
Hopkins confidently predicted that Trump would end the Ukraine war within his first 100 days.
He didn’t.
As of 5 September 2026 the war is still continuing, and Trump’s representatives are still attempting to negotiate an agreement.
Her suggestion that European leaders had simply done “nothing” ignores hundreds of billions of euros and dollars of military, financial and humanitarian assistance and years of diplomatic activity.
Her suggestion that failure to achieve peace earlier proves European leaders could not contribute to peace later is logically incoherent — particularly when Trump himself failed to meet the deadline Hopkins set for him.
Her claim that Zelenskyy is a billionaire is unsupported by credible evidence.
Her claim that he was “fully paid for” and created as somebody’s puppet is presented without identifying who supposedly controlled him or producing evidence demonstrating that control.
Her description of his television career takes something true — that a famous comedian who played a fictional president subsequently became a real presidential candidate — and turns it into an unsupported conspiracy about unidentified people manufacturing Ukraine’s leader.
And her references to Zelenskyy dancing or wearing high heels during his entertainment career prove nothing about corruption, wealth or political legitimacy.
Zelenskyy ultimately became president because Ukrainian voters elected him.
Roughly 73% of those who voted in the second round of the 2019 presidential election voted for him.
Hopkins’ video therefore offers an unusually useful demonstration of the difference between political commentary and factual analysis.
There are facts in it.
There are opinions in it.
There are insults in it.
There are conspiracy claims in it.
And, most importantly, there is one extremely specific prediction against which the entire performance can now be measured:
“Trump, in his first hundred days in office, will have ended the war.”
He didn’t.
VERDICT: FALSE, UNSUPPORTED AND BADLY AGED
SOURCES
Kiel Institute for the World Economy — Ukraine Support Tracker
Kiel Institute — Europe Steps Up: Ukraine Support After Four Years of War
Congressional Research Service — US Direct Financial Support for Ukraine
Reuters — US envoys Witkoff and Kushner travel to Russia and Ukraine in latest attempt to negotiate peace, September 2026
Council on Foreign Relations — How Much US Aid Is Going to Ukraine?
ORIGINAL VIDEO
Katie Hopkins — Ukraine / Trump / Zelenskyy comments
Batshit Bonkers Katie Hopkins 