Monday, March 17, 2025

Trump Preparing to Give Crimea to Putin

The Trump administration is considering recognizing Ukraine's Crimea region as Russian territory as part of any future agreement to end Moscow's war on Kyiv, according to two people familiar with the matter. Administration officials have also discussed the possibility of having the US urge the United Nations to do the same, according to both people. Such a request would align the Trump administration with the position of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has long seen Crimea as his nation's territory.

More

As "negotiations" with Putin continue, the Trump regime appears prepared to recognize Ukraine's Crimea region as Russian territory.

Also being considered is the possibility of having the U.S. urge the United Nations to follow suit.

Surrendering Crimea to Putin would be a ... [image or embed]

" Stephanie Kennedy (@wordswithsteph.bsky.social) March 17, 2025 at 2:58 PM

Comments

No one could have foreseen that Putin's Beach would do this.

#1 | Posted by censored at 2025-03-17 09:42 PM

I'm pretty sure Obama gave Crimea away back during his Presidency, but hey what do I know ...

#2 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2025-03-17 09:43 PM

How can Russia be "given" a piece of land that it has possessed since 2014?

#3 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-03-17 09:44 PM

I'm pretty sure Obama gave Crimea away back during his Presidency, but hey what do I know ...
#2 | Posted by Bluewaffles

Good job trying to cover for Trump's bend-over for Putin.

#4 | Posted by censored at 2025-03-17 09:45 PM

The noxious orange pedo has a long history of surrendering to Putin.

www.thedailybeast.com

#5 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2025-03-17 09:46 PM

How can Russia be "given" a piece of land that it has possessed since 2014?
#3 | Posted by BellRinger

Formal recognition, as it says in the three-sentence summary. The type we have not given before Orange Pussolini drops to his knees for Putin next month.

But you already knew that.

#6 | Posted by censored at 2025-03-17 09:49 PM

I'm pretty sure Obama gave Crimea away back during his Presidency, but hey what do I know ...

Posted by Bluewaffles at 2025-03-17 09:43 PM | Reply

Not much apparently.

#7 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-03-17 09:55 PM

" Formal recognition"

Okay. I get what you are saying. However from a practical standpoint, with or without formal recognition Russia still occupies Crimea and no military on the planet is going to take action to reverse that.

#8 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-03-17 10:06 PM

@#2 ... I'm pretty sure Obama gave Crimea away back during his Presidency ...

If your current alias is "pretty sure" then it must have evidence.

So, what's it got?

#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-03-17 10:11 PM

from a practical standpoint, with or without formal recognition Russia still occupies Crimea and no military on the planet is going to take action to reverse that.
#8 | Posted by BellRinger

You'd be surprised what could change with a revolution or two (See USSR).

But there's no reason for the US to give up what the Ukrainian people have not. Unless we are also Putin's Beach.

#10 | Posted by censored at 2025-03-17 10:30 PM

" You'd be surprised what could change with a revolution or two (See USSR)"

That took about 5 decades, a far more existential threat and for more land than an island.

I don't know if a truce is possible but I do believe it should be first priority given the status quo is the classic definition of insanity.

#11 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-03-17 10:54 PM

Didn't shitler already achieve peace in our time?

#12 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-03-17 10:55 PM

That took about 5 decades
I've got the time. Let Russia suffer out in the cold for fifty years and see if it was worth it.

I don't know if a truce is possible but I do believe it should be first priority given the status quo is the classic definition of insanity.
#11 | Posted by BellRinger

That's for the people of Ukraine to decide. Since they were the ones that had their people murdered and their land stolen from them.

We shouldn't be giving up their land for them and handing out their natural resources to their invader.

Trump says Ukraine-Russia peace talks looking at dividing up certain assets'
www.cnn.com

#13 | Posted by censored at 2025-03-17 11:14 PM

"After he cedes Crimea to Vlad, and Donbas and more... he'll give up half of Ukraine's minerals to Russia, and keep the rest for TrumpCo.

If Vlad will throw in some of the blond girl pre-teens they've captured. Because that's just the kind of AC he is.

Posted by Corky at 2025-03-17 06:16 PM"

#14 | Posted by Corky at 2025-03-17 11:20 PM

" I've got the time. Let Russia suffer out in the cold for fifty years and see if it was worth it"

This isn't the Cold War. We are not fighting Communism as it pertains to Russia. The geopolitical situation is considerably different than it was during the 80's. Today, China is our biggest geopolitical threat. Circling back, what is the end-game? Do we continue to deplete our military assets and increase our deficits to the tune of 10's of billions per year to fight a proxy war with Russia with all of the blood and treasure sacrifice that goes with it? We have 3 choices: De-escalate (seek a truce), status quo forever (not working). Escalate.

As I see it. Status quo is insane. So, de-escalation should be pursued as aggressively as possible before the only other option of escalation, which could trigger a 3rd World War in a little over a century.

#15 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-03-17 11:47 PM

This isn't the Cold War.

If the US had joined the Warsaw Pact back in 1955 instead of 2025 there never would have been a Cold War.

#16 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-03-17 11:54 PM

" That's for the people of Ukraine to decide. Since they were the ones that had their people murdered and their land stolen from them."

Okay

"We shouldn't be giving up their land for them and handing out their natural resources to their invader."

If it's for Ukraine to decide then let them decide.

I broke up your two sentences for a reason. On the one hand you say they should be the ones to determine their fate.

In the other hand you say the US shouldn't have any say in outcome.

The only way to square that logic is for the US to completely pull out of this conflict. If we are going to spend tens of billions annually funding Ukraine's defense then we absolutely will play a role in hopefully brokering a truce.

#17 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-03-17 11:54 PM

As I see it. Status quo is insane.
#15 | Posted by BellRinger

Tens of billions for utterly destroying the second biggest military threat (compared to the ~$900 billion we spend for our military every single year)? Without risking a single American life? I think your math is not the same as mine.

There's no doubt which side Russia will take when we finally confront China. So the more their military is neutered by Ukraine, the better, IMHO.

And "peace in our time" appeasement is short-sighted. But I'm not bending over backwards trying to make excuses for my draft-dodging, russophile, putin-sucking, money-grubbing president.

#18 | Posted by censored at 2025-03-17 11:54 PM

The geopolitical landscape today is vastly different from the Cold War era, with China now identified as the United States' primary strategic rival. While Russia's invasion of Ukraine has drawn significant U.S. attention and resources, the broader concern lies in managing the Russia-China alliance, which has grown stronger amid Western sanctions and global realignments.

Strategic Context
China is the U.S.'s biggest geopolitical threat, and many argue that prolonged focus on Ukraine diverts critical resources from countering Beijing. Former President Trump has suggested a negotiated settlement to the Ukraine conflict, potentially involving a freeze along current frontlines, delayed NATO membership for Ukraine, and reduced U.S. military aid. This approach prioritizes de-escalation but risks legitimizing Russian territorial gains and weakening NATO unity.

Options Moving Forward
1. De-escalation: Negotiating a truce could end the immediate conflict but risks emboldening authoritarian regimes and undermining Western credibility.
2. Status Quo: Continuing military aid to Ukraine sustains a costly stalemate, draining U.S. resources and prolonging global instability.
3. Escalation: Increasing NATO involvement risks direct confrontation with Russia and potential nuclear escalation.

The war has reshaped global energy markets, strengthened Russia-China trade ties, and forced nations in the Global South to hedge between power blocs. Sanctions have hurt Russia but have not crippled its economy due to circumvention by allies like China and India.

De-escalation may align with U.S. interests in refocusing on China, but it carries significant risks of normalizing aggression and destabilizing Europe. The challenge lies in balancing support for Ukraine while maintaining strategic focus on countering China's rise"a delicate and increasingly urgent task for U.S. policymakers.

Citations:
[1]
geopoliticaleconomy.com
[2] www.youtube.com
[3] www.max-security.com
[4] www.russiamatters.org
[5] moderndiplomacy.eu
[6] www.themoscowtimes.com
[7] www.atlanticcouncil.org
[8] euromaidanpress.com

#19 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2025-03-17 11:59 PM

urgent task for U.S. policymakers.

Are there such people anymore? US policy seems to be more decided on the whims of a lunatic President.

#20 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-03-18 12:08 AM

@#11 ... I do believe it should be first priority given the status quo is the classic definition of insanity. ...

Please explain how your current alias thinks that the "classic definition of insanity" applies in the situation it is commenting upon.

thx.

#21 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-03-18 12:09 AM

@#19 ... Options Moving Forward
1. De-escalation: Negotiating a truce could end the immediate conflict but risks emboldening authoritarian regimes and undermining Western credibility. ...

that the path I see Pres trump taking, going forward.

But instead of "de-escalation" I'd offer the phrase, "forced Ukrainian surrender."

#22 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-03-18 12:12 AM

Minibar - Holiday From Myself (2001)
www.youtube.com

Lyrics excerpt ...
genius.com

...
If I was a friend of mine
I would surely be concerned
I'd recommend I take some time
Away from me

I think I need a holiday from myself
I need some time away from being me
I'm worried about my health
And I seem to be bad company

I need time
To be careless with my mouth
Not worry what I think about
'Cos it's all fine

I need the dawn
I never get to bed before
I don't sleep naked anymore
And I can't lie in

Imagine I could take a package deal
A SAGA tour of ancient Rhodes
A weekend break in Galashiels
Or circumnavigate the globe

I think I need
Two weeks in a caravan
To get away from who I am
And where I've been
So book me up
...


#23 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-03-18 12:22 AM

" Tens of billions for utterly destroying the second biggest military threat (compared to the ~$900 billion we spend for our military every single year)? Without risking a single American life? I think your math is not the same as mine"

That's not what's happening. Tens of billions annually while Ukraine continues to tread water, at best. All the while China expands their military without expending their assets.

" And "peace in our time" appeasement is short-sighted. But I'm not bending over backwards trying to make excuses for my draft-dodging, russophile, putin-sucking, money-grubbing president.

#18 | POSTED BY CENSORED AT 2025-03-17 11:54 PM | FLAG: "

Was that really necessary? I thought we were having an honest, good-faith discussion.

#24 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-03-18 12:28 AM

"If we are going to spend tens of billions annually funding Ukraine's defense then we absolutely will play a role in hopefully brokering a truce."

Except what we're doing isn't brokering a truce. We're divvying up spoils from an invaded country.

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-03-18 12:28 AM

" Except what we're doing isn't brokering a truce. We're divvying up spoils from an invaded country.

#25 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2025-03-18 12:28 AM | FLAG: "

Don't be naive. Historically, that is what a truce amounts to. The reason Ukraine might agree is that if material support is withdrawn the outcome for their country will likely be much worse.

#26 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-03-18 12:31 AM

We're divvying up spoils from an invaded country.

Is there a Nobel Prize for pillaging?

#27 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-03-18 12:31 AM

But instead of "de-escalation" I'd offer the phrase, "forced Ukrainian surrender."
#22 | Posted by LampLighter

Agreed.

#28 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2025-03-18 12:51 AM

The critique that current ceasefire negotiations risk becoming a de facto division of spoils"rather than a balanced peace agreement"reflects valid historical and strategic concerns. Here's a breakdown of the dynamics:

Key Issues in the Proposed Truce
1. Territorial Concessions
Russia demands recognition of its annexation of Crimea (2014) and four partially occupied regions (Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson)[2][4]. The U.S.-backed ceasefire proposal implicitly accepts freezing the conflict along current frontlines, leaving ~20% of Ukrainian territory under Russian control[1][6]. This mirrors historical precedents like the 1938 Munich Agreement, where territorial concessions were traded for temporary peace.

2. Ukraine's Sovereignty vs. Pragmatism
While Kyiv insists it will never recognize Russian claims or abandon NATO aspirations[2][3], its acceptance of the 30-day ceasefire reflects desperation to halt battlefield losses. With U.S. military aid potentially decreasing under Trump[1][5], Ukraine faces a grim calculus: concessions now may prevent worse terms later if Western support erodes further.

3. Asymmetric Enforcement Mechanisms
Putin's conditions"including bans on Ukrainian rearmament and NATO peacekeepers[4][5]"would lock in Russian advantages. Meanwhile, Moscow faces no comparable restrictions, allowing it to consolidate control over occupied zones and critical infrastructure like the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant[3][6].

Broader Implications
- Legitimizing Conquest: A deal granting Russia territorial gains without Ukrainian consent risks normalizing border changes by force, undermining the UN Charter's principles[2][8].
- NATO Cohesion: European allies like the UK and Poland have rejected terms that exclude Ukrainian NATO membership, fearing long-term security erosion[6][7].
- Global Precedent: Emerging powers like India and Trkiye are closely watching whether Western-backed rules-based order can withstand realist power politics[3][9].

Danforth's analogy holds merit: the proposed truce structurally favors Russia by codifying its territorial seizures and restricting Ukraine's defense capacity. While Kyiv's agreement may stem from immediate survival needs, the terms risk entrenching a volatile, unequal peace that rewards aggression. Without enforceable guarantees for Ukraine's sovereignty or security, this ceasefire risks becoming less a resolution than a temporary pause in a prolonged contest over spheres of influence.

Citations:
[1]
www.washingtonpost.com
[2] www.npr.org
[3] www.aljazeera.com
[4] www.aljazeera.com
[5] www.cnbc.com
[6] www.reuters.com
[7] www.bbc.com
[8] apnews.com
[9] www.reuters.com

#29 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2025-03-18 12:54 AM

@#24 ... Was that really necessary? ...

Was what really necessarily?

... I thought we were having an honest, good-faith discussion. ...

So why didn't your current alias indicate, at a minimum, which comment it was replying to?

#30 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-03-18 01:24 AM

@#26 ... Don't be naive. Historically, that is what a truce amounts to. ...

That's what surrender amounts to in this instance.


Pres Trump giving up major concessions (NATO membership and sovereign security assurances) before the negotiations had even started, all to appease Pres Putin, and without the consent or even acknowledgement of Pres Zelenskyy.

Pres Trump looks to be surrendering Ukraine to Pres Putin.

Pres Trump looks to be setting up a "peace" deal that allows Pres Putin to invade Ukraine again in the future.

At this point, it no longer seems to be a question.

The question that does remain, however, is why?



#31 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-03-18 01:30 AM

@#29 ... Danforth's analogy holds merit: the proposed truce structurally favors Russia by codifying its territorial seizures and restricting Ukraine's defense capacity ...

Yup.

And then, I might add, how long before Pres Putin decides to invae and annex the rest of Ukraine, now that he knows he can?

#32 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-03-18 01:33 AM

"Don't be naive."

Riiiiiiiight.

Remind me which parts of the Middle East Jimmy Carter claimed for brokering peace.

#33 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-03-18 02:40 AM

Remind me which parts of the Middle East Jimmy Carter claimed for brokering peace.

I don't think he claimed any. Maybe that's why he got the Nobel Peace Prize?

#34 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-03-18 02:48 AM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Trump Upending World Order will Cost America Dearly (60 comments)

The Ukraine Ceasefire Trap: Is The U.S. Playing Right Into Putin's Hands? (37 comments)

Portugal Wobbles on Buying F-35s Because of Trump (37 comments)

Bondi tells Tesla vandals to 'watch out' (32 comments)

Grave Warnings as Trump Gleefully Defies Courts on Deportations (31 comments)

Trump Shuts Down Voice of America (26 comments)

Trump's Economic Troubles Put Republicans on the Defensive (16 comments)

Musk's DOGE Shutters $1B Affordable Housing Program (16 comments)

Green Card Holder 'interrogated' and Detained (15 comments)

Trump Voter Shocked After Immigrant Wife Detained (15 comments)