By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a phone call, Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly demanded Ukraine cede full control of the strategically important Donetsk region to end the ongoing war. This condition was relayed to President Donald Trump by Putin, according to sources familiar with their conversation. The demand underscores Russia’s continued focus on territorial gains in eastern Ukraine. The call highlights the complex geopolitical dynamics at play and the potential obstacles to peace negotiations.
Read the original article here
Putin demanded Ukraine surrender key territory in call with Trump, which immediately sparks a wave of conflicting emotions and questions. It’s a situation that’s deeply troubling, and the implications of such a demand are far-reaching, particularly when considering the parties involved.
In the call between Trump and Putin, the Russian leader suggested he would be willing to “surrender” parts of two other regions of Ukraine he has partly conquered: Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. The word “surrender” is being used very liberally here, and it’s essential to understand the context. Putin isn’t exactly giving something up; he’s suggesting a concession of territories he already partly controls. This is a crucial distinction. What’s not clear is what exactly constitutes “parts” he is willing to surrender, presumably meaning the areas he does not fully control.
This brings up another significant point: Putin’s demands likely extend far beyond mere territorial concessions. He is almost certainly demanding political concessions that would leave Ukraine vulnerable and unable to govern itself effectively. The underlying goal is not just land; it’s destabilization and the establishment of a puppet state. It’s easy to see how this could be framed by some as a compromise, an attempt to end the conflict, but in reality, it’s a strategic maneuver.
Many are rightly asking, “How about no?” The idea of giving up territory to appease Putin is anathema to those who support Ukraine’s sovereignty. Comparisons to the potential for similar concessions elsewhere in the world, such as returning states to the UK or parts of the US to Mexico based on language, are absurd and highlight the injustice of the situation. It’s a lose-lose situation; no real victory is possible, only varying degrees of failure.
That being said, some believe that Trump, with his history and perceived relationships, might be on the wrong side again, showing a tendency to prioritize appeasement over standing up for the wronged party. If the United States were to consider supporting the abandonment of Ukrainian land, it is difficult to imagine that it would not be a catastrophic mistake.
It’s crucial to acknowledge that Ukraine is not alone in determining its course of action. It’s the Ukrainian people who decide the fate of their nation, not outside forces. The best approach is to support their determination to resist, not to negotiate away their territory to appease a hostile aggressor.
The headline says it all: “Ukraine surrender key territory”. It’s a demand that should be treated with the utmost seriousness, as it could signal a significant turning point in the conflict. The fact that this could be a point of discussion or consideration is a clear sign that things could go horribly wrong.
The scenario potentially playing out is that Trump, upon re-election, could be inclined to take actions in this vein, potentially pushing for territorial concessions in exchange for some sort of resolution. Whether this is done for political reasons or through manipulation is irrelevant; the result would be devastating. It is a mistake that would go down in history as one of the most detrimental of this entire war.
Trump’s political history indicates an inclination to favor those with power and money. Putin, in his position of power, likely knows this and is willing to use it to his advantage. It’s a disturbing dynamic. It appears that Putin is losing, but now he is trying to negotiate, which is a tactic used to gain leverage and influence.
The proposed peace talks are unlikely to be fruitful. Given the positions of the involved parties, the talks have little chance of success. This doesn’t mean that there’s no reason to talk, but it does mean it will take incredible luck or a drastic shift in circumstances.
The situation is psychologically damaging. The ongoing conflict has created stress, anxiety, and trauma that will affect people for years to come. In considering this, it’s essential to remember that Russia initiated the conflict and should be held responsible for its actions.
It’s a mistake to consider territorial concessions to Putin. Supporting Ukraine’s resistance and providing them with the means to defend themselves is the only way to get a lasting peace and security.