As they prepare to meet, Trump turns pressure on Zelensky saying he should give up territory (Ld)
socialnews.xyz -- Monday, August 18, 2025, 12:26:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: U.S.–Russia Relations, Social Media & Public Statements, U.S. Elections & Voting Rights
New York, Aug 18 (SocialNews.XYZ) While Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was preparing to meet US President Donald Trump at the Oval Office on Monday with a phalanx of European leaders, the American President turned pressure on his counterpart, suggesting he should give up claim to some territories occupied by Russia.
It was accompanied by a stern admonishment, "President Zelensky of Ukraine can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight."
But there was no matching ultimatum to Russia's President Vladimir Putin, with whom Trump held a summit on Friday.
In his Truth Social post on Sunday, setting pre-conditions, Trump said, "No getting back Obama given Crimea (12 years ago, without a shot being fired!), and no going into NATO by Ukraine."
Trump was referring to the Russian occupation of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula in 2014 without military resistance while Barack Obama was the President, and implying that in a settlement of the war, Kyiv would have to give up claims to it.
It could also be interpreted that Russia may give up some of its claims to other territories that it seized after the invasion that started in February 2022, in return for keeping Crimea.
Russia now occupies about 20 per cent of Ukraine's territory.
Trump's Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, who was at Trump's summit, told CNN, "The Russians made some concessions at the table with regard to all five of those regions" that Moscow has laid claims to.
Trump was also echoing Vladimir Putin's demand that Ukraine should not aspire to membership in the Western military alliance, NATO.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who was also present at the summit, gave a hint about what Trump demanded explicitly.
Rubio told an NBC news programme earlier on Sunday, "The only way to reach a deal is for each side to get something and each side to give something."
Trump's post came as Zelensky was set to meet him to follow up on the US-Russia summit in Alaska to find a way to end the war.
France's President Emmanuel Macron, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and European Union President Ursula von der Leyen are among leaders who have said that they will be accompanying Zelensky.
The meeting is to prepare the way for a trilateral meeting that includes Putin by narrowing the differences and setting the parameters for negotiations.
Zelensky and European leaders have opposed Ukraine having to give up any territory in a peace deal.
Zelensky said on X on Sunday after a strategy session with European leaders, "Everyone agrees that borders must not be changed by force."
"There are no territorial negotiations between Putin and Trump over the heads of Ukraine and the Europeans," Merz said in a tweet on Sunday.
After his summit, Trump dropped his demand for an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine that the Europeans had agreed on, and the threat of "severe consequences" for Russia if he didn't get it.
The leaders accompanying Zelensky apparently want to make sure that he is not made to agree to concessions by an overbearing Trump, especially on territory.
Trump had publicly berated Zelensky at an Oval Office meeting in February for his demands to agree to a peace deal, telling him that he did not "have the cards" and he was risking World War III.
"They're not coming here tomorrow to keep Zelensky from being bullied," Rubio said, bristling at the suggestion on CBS, calling it a "stupid media narrative."
"The President invited them to come," he said.
Trump and Rubio have conceded that the final decision on a peace deal was with Zelensky.
Zelensky acknowledged a significant concession Trump wrested from Putin, to offer a security guarantee for Ukraine that the US would also participate in.
"This is a historic decision that the United States is ready to take part in security guarantees for Ukraine," which, he said, "must be developed with Europe's participation" and cover land, sea and air.
Witkoff said, "We agreed to robust security guarantees that I would describe as game-changing."
He said that Putin had agreed to enact legislation promising Russia wouldn't invade Ukraine or other countries.
Sign Our PetitionThe recent developments surrounding former President Donald Trump’s comments regarding Ukraine and its territorial integrity are not only startling but also reveal deeper historical and ethical implications that resonate within the context of international law and human rights. In a political landscape defined by shifting allegiances and tumultuous events, Trump's suggestion that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky should relinquish territory to Russia is a stark reminder of how power dynamics can reshape national sovereignty. This perspective reflects a broader historical trend wherein territorial disputes are often resolved at the negotiating table without genuine regard for the will of the populations affected.
Historically, the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014 served as a critical inflection point in modern geopolitics. It marked a significant departure from post-World War II norms wherein countries generally refrained from altering borders through military force. The international community largely condemned the act, viewing it as a blatant violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity under international law. Trump's recent comments, which seemingly echo the sentiments of appeasement, undermine this foundational principle and risk normalizing the idea that territorial concessions are acceptable outcomes of conflict. This poses a dangerous precedent not only for Ukraine but for other nations facing similar threats.
Engaging with the historical context of Ukraine’s plight reveals the persistence of imperial ambitions that have plagued Eastern Europe for centuries. The ongoing conflict is not merely a bilateral issue between Russia and Ukraine; it is emblematic of a broader struggle against authoritarianism and imperialism. The insistence by Zelensky and his European allies that “borders must not be changed by force” is a principled stand against the historical injustices that have seen powerful nations impose their will on weaker states. The idea that negotiations can occur over the heads of sovereign nations is reminiscent of the Treaties of Versailles and Trianon, where the fate of nations was decided without their input, often leading to resentment and conflict.
Furthermore, the rhetoric surrounding NATO and Ukraine's aspirations for membership raises critical questions about collective security and the responsibilities of democratic nations toward one another. NATO was established as a bulwark against aggression and a means to ensure mutual defense. If countries like Ukraine are denied the right to join due to the demands of a belligerent neighbor, it invites a dangerous narrative that could embolden authoritarian regimes globally. The notion that Ukraine’s sovereignty should be contingent upon Russia's approval is a direct affront to the principles of self-determination and democracy, which are foundational to the post-war international order.
Ultimately, the dynamics at play in these negotiations illuminate the broader social struggles for justice and equality that transcend national boundaries. The international community must recognize that the fight for Ukraine is not simply a fight for territory; it is a struggle for the rights of nations to exist free from coercion and violence. As citizens around the world grapple with issues of sovereignty, justice, and the repercussions of war, it is crucial to advocate for policies that uphold the dignity and autonomy of all nations. The lessons from Ukraine’s struggle are clear: any resolution that sacrifices the rights of populations for the sake of political expediency is a step backward for humanity. It is imperative for activists and informed citizens to continuously challenge narratives that seek to undermine these principles, ensuring that power is held accountable and that the voices of the oppressed are heard.
The recent discussions surrounding the ongoing conflict in Ukraine reveal a troubling trend in international diplomacy, particularly as articulated by former President Donald Trump. In a striking move, Trump has suggested that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky should consider conceding territory occupied by Russia as a potential path to peace. This approach raises significant moral and strategic questions, especially given the historical context of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, which have long been pillars of international law and norms. The implications of such concessions not only undermine the resilience of nations confronting aggression but also set a precarious precedent for future global conflicts.
Historically, the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014 serves as a poignant reminder of the dangers associated with territorial concessions made under duress. The international community largely condemned Russia's actions, viewing them as a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and a challenge to the post-World War II order. The principle of inviolable borders was established to prevent the kind of aggressive expansionism that characterized earlier eras. By suggesting that Ukraine should relinquish claims to Crimea, Trump is not only disregarding this historical context but also emboldening authoritarian regimes that may seek to exploit similar vulnerabilities in other nations. The stakes are high; yielding to aggression could lead to a domino effect, encouraging further territorial ambitions by other states.
In light of these developments, it is imperative for Americans to engage in meaningful discussions about the principles that guide our foreign policy. We must advocate for a strong stance that supports Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, recognizing that the defense of democracy and human rights must remain at the forefront of our international engagements. Collective action is essential; by raising awareness of the implications of territorial concessions, we can foster a public discourse that holds leaders accountable. Community forums, town halls, and social media platforms can serve as vital venues for citizens to express their concerns and demand a foreign policy that prioritizes principles over expediency.
Furthermore, the upcoming elections present an opportunity for voters to assess candidates' positions on foreign policy, particularly regarding Ukraine. Engaging with local representatives about their stance on military aid, diplomatic strategies, and negotiations is crucial. Advocacy groups, especially those focused on human rights and international law, should mobilize to educate the public on the need for robust support for Ukraine and to counter narratives that promote appeasement. Grassroots campaigns can effectively highlight the importance of standing firm against authoritarianism and provide a platform for voices that emphasize solidarity with nations facing aggression.
Ultimately, these discussions should be rooted in a broader understanding of the interconnectedness of global politics. The conflict in Ukraine is not an isolated event; it is part of a larger struggle between democratic ideals and autocratic ambitions. As citizens, we must advocate for a foreign policy that recognizes this interconnectedness, promoting a world where diplomacy is grounded in respect for sovereignty and human rights. By engaging in thoughtful dialogue and taking action at both the grassroots and electoral levels, we can contribute to a more just and secure international order, ensuring that the lessons of history guide our future decisions.
In response to the article discussing the pressure placed on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky by former President Donald Trump regarding territorial concessions to Russia, there are several personal and collective actions that we can undertake to voice our concerns and influence policy. Here is a detailed list of actions we can take:
### Personal Actions
1. **Educate Yourself and Others** - Stay informed about the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia, including historical context and current developments. Share articles, documentaries, and books that provide a balanced perspective on the situation.
2. **Engage in Conversations** - Discuss the implications of territorial concessions with friends, family, and community members. Encourage them to think critically about the consequences of such negotiations and the importance of Ukrainian sovereignty.
### Advocacy Actions
1. **Sign Petitions** - **Petition for Ukrainian Sovereignty**: Look for campaigns on platforms like Change.org or MoveOn.org that advocate for Ukraine's territorial integrity and oppose any pressure for concessions. - Example: A petition titled "Stand with Ukraine: No Territorial Concessions!" can be created or supported on Change.org.
2. **Contact Elected Officials** - **Write to Your Senators and Representatives**: Express your concerns about the pressure on Ukraine to give up territory and urge them to support policies that uphold Ukraine’s sovereignty. - **Example Contacts**: - **Senator Bernie Sanders** (VT) - Email: senator_sanders@sanders.senate.gov - Mailing Address: 1 Battery Park Ave, Suite 360, Burlington, VT 05401 - **Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez** (NY) - Email: ocasio-cortez.house.gov/contact - Mailing Address: 1651 Halsey St, Suite 3, Bronx, NY 10461
- **What to Say**: - “I am writing to express my concern regarding the recent pressure on Ukraine to concede territory to Russia. I believe that Ukraine’s sovereignty must be respected and upheld, and I urge you to advocate for policies that support a strong and independent Ukraine.”
3. **Engage with Local Activism** - Find or join local organizations that support Ukraine and advocate for peace without territorial concessions. Participate in rallies, discussions, or fundraisers to raise awareness and support for Ukrainian sovereignty.
4. **Utilize Social Media** - Use platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook to raise awareness of the issue. Share posts, articles, and petitions that emphasize the importance of supporting Ukraine's territorial integrity. - Create a campaign or hashtag (e.g., #StandWithUkraine) to encourage others to join the conversation.
5. **Contact Media Outlets** - Write letters to the editor of local newspapers or online publications, emphasizing the need for a strong stance against territorial concessions and advocating for Ukraine’s right to defend its borders. - Example Contact: - The New York Times Letters to the Editor - Email: letters@nytimes.com
6. **Participate in Fundraising Efforts** - Support organizations that provide aid to Ukraine, such as: - **United Help Ukraine**: Fundraising efforts can be supported through their website or by organizing local fundraising events. - **Doctors Without Borders**: Contribute to their efforts in providing medical assistance to those affected by the conflict.
7. **Attend Town Hall Meetings** - Participate in local government meetings or town halls to ask elected officials about their stance on the Ukraine conflict and advocate for a stronger commitment to supporting Ukraine.
By taking these actions, individuals can play a significant role in advocating for a peaceful resolution to the conflict that respects Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Each action contributes to building a collective voice that can influence policy and support those affected by the ongoing war.