No Peace Without Ukrainian Crimea
- 22.04.2025, 13:02
Trump and his entourage are in a trap, which they have fallen into solely due to their own fault.
The NYP publication, citing officials familiar with the details of the peace agreement, reports that Ukraine is allegedly ready to give up part of the territories occupied by Russia if it is considered a ‘de facto’ rather than ‘de jure’ recognition. The piece says that ‘de facto’ means: we recognise that the Russians have occupied this land, but we are not saying that [Ukraine] will give it up forever. ‘De jure’ means: we recognise that [the Russians] are seizing this land and we will never see it again.’
It is certain that the Kremlin conveyed all its ‘wants’ to the new US administration as early as 18 February 2025, when the US President's Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Whitkoff, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz met for the first time in Riyadh, mediated by Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan al-Saud and National Security Advisor Mosaad bin Mohammed al-Aiban, with Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
To say that the American side was shocked by the Kremlin's whims is to say nothing. After all, there were all the demands that Putin had previously voiced: denazification, demilitarisation, Ukraine's non-admission to NATO and, of course, international recognition by Russia of all occupied Ukrainian lands, including Crimea.
Actually, Trump and his entourage have found themselves in a trap that they have fallen into solely due to their own fault.
It is enough to recall the flow of benevolent messages towards Putin and Russia, which they voiced long before the start of the negotiations. Finally, Moscow lost itself in a dream and the whole Russian imperial nature came out.....
...Now, it seems to me - here I'm moving to assumptions - the Trump administration is testing the leadership and politicians of Ukraine by organising various throw-ins on the subject of territorial concessions from our side. They say that it will be impossible to end the Russian-Ukrainian war and achieve sustainable peace without them.
Accordingly, Kyiv must remain categorically opposed to any, even hypothetical, proposals for territorial concessions by Ukraine in exchange for peace. Because it is clear that in such a case there will be neither peace nor the future of the Ukrainian state.
At the same time, since such provocations will continue, the Ukrainian authorities and politicians should give a tough response in every case when they are backed by real politicians.
Here it is appropriate to say that the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People proceeds from the unacceptability of both the option of recognising Russia's ‘de facto’ control over Crimea and, even more so, the option of international recognising the Russian status of Crimea.
Our standpoint, which is fully based on international law and is absolutely in line with the national legislation of Ukraine, is as follows: Crimea is the homeland of the indigenous Crimean Tatar people and an integral part of Ukraine. Accordingly, no one and under no circumstances can decide the fate of Crimea except the Ukrainian State and the Crimean Tatar people.
Refat Chubarov, UNIAN