By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump advised President Zelensky to concede Crimea to Russia and forgo NATO membership to immediately end the war with Russia. This stance aligns with Trump’s past statements, including his belief that Ukraine’s NATO aspirations triggered the conflict. Trump’s advice precedes a White House meeting with Zelensky and key European leaders, aimed at negotiating a peace agreement rather than a mere cease-fire. European allies, however, continue to advocate for increased pressure on Russia.
Read the original article here
Trump Tells Zelensky to Forgo Crimea or Joining NATO, and it’s difficult to know where to start, except maybe with the feeling of disbelief. It’s almost as if we’ve stumbled into a parallel universe where basic principles of international relations and national sovereignty are up for negotiation on a whim.
The core issue here is Trump’s reported suggestion to Zelensky: essentially, surrender territory, specifically Crimea, or abandon any aspirations of joining NATO. This is a loaded proposition, to say the least. It completely disregards Ukraine’s sovereign right to determine its own future and security arrangements. It’s not just about land; it’s about the principles the world operates on, the very foundations of international law. To suggest such a thing is to legitimize aggression, to reward it, and to signal to other potential aggressors that might makes right.
Let’s be frank: this is not just a policy disagreement. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding, or perhaps a deliberate disregard, of the stakes. NATO membership is a critical guarantee for Ukraine’s security, offering a collective defense commitment that would deter future attacks. To trade that for what essentially amounts to appeasement—ceding territory to a hostile power—is a dangerous game. History has taught us, time and again, that appeasement only emboldens aggressors.
The implications of such a deal are far-reaching. Firstly, it would leave Ukraine vulnerable to further aggression. Putin has already demonstrated a willingness to violate international law and disregard the sovereignty of Ukraine. Without the security of NATO membership, Ukraine would be left exposed. The idea that Russia will magically be satisfied with Crimea or parts of the Donbas is naive, at best.
Secondly, the message this sends to the world is catastrophic. It undermines the credibility of international alliances, of the idea that nations can band together to protect each other. It suggests that the only thing that matters is raw power, and that weaker nations should simply surrender to stronger ones. Such a stance is not only immoral; it’s also incredibly short-sighted. A world where might makes right is a world of instability and constant conflict, which would be a disastrous scenario for everyone.
And it seems important to remember that any deal that does not have serious, painful, and damaging repercussions for Putin, for when he next wants to break the deal and take more land…that deal is worthless. It also seems Trump has no clear understanding of the situation at hand.
The response to such a proposition should be immediate and unequivocal rejection. Zelensky has the right to determine his country’s future. No one should dictate what Ukraine can and can’t do.
It’s even more alarming considering Trump’s past behavior and connections. His admiration for Putin is well documented and his willingness to cozy up to dictators and tyrants is a matter of public record. In short, it paints the picture of someone far more interested in currying favor with Putin than in the safety and security of Ukraine.
Now, let’s consider the motivations behind such a move. What could possibly be the reason for advocating for a concession that would be so detrimental to Ukraine? The most obvious answer is a desire to appease Putin. It’s also possible that Trump views NATO as a burden, a source of expense, or an obstacle to his personal agenda. Whatever the reason, the consequences of such an approach would be devastating.
It’s not just about Ukraine. It’s about the broader implications for the international order. By endorsing such a deal, Trump would be undermining the entire framework of international law and diplomacy. This would create a dangerous precedent, making it easier for other aggressors to challenge the existing order.
It’s a sad state of affairs when the idea of potentially joining Zelensky instead of NATO seems appealing, simply for the security it would provide. And, let’s be honest, that’s not an argument I ever expected to be making.
In this whole situation, there is also a strong undercurrent of the Trumpstein files, which is also hard to ignore. We also cannot ignore the fact that such a maneuver, if successful, would likely be touted as a great accomplishment, the type of Nobel Prize-worthy deal.
We must also never forget the fundamental principle at stake here: the right of nations to choose their own alliances and determine their own futures. Trump’s suggestion would violate that principle, and we must stand firm in our support for Ukraine’s sovereignty.