<![CDATA[Donald Trump]]><![CDATA[Russia]]><![CDATA[Ukraine]]><![CDATA[USA]]><![CDATA[Vladimir Putin]]><![CDATA[Volodymyr Zelensky]]>Featured

Give Up the Donetsk Region – RedState

On Friday, we noted that President Trump had described a peace deal to end the Russo-Ukrainian War, in which both sides would simply lay down their arms, walk away from the lines as they exist, and accept that as the new status quo.





On Sunday, the UK Telegraph revealed that President Trump’s top negotiator, Steve Witkoff, has been pushing Ukraine to give up the Donetsk area in return for peace, a major part of what President Trump would have Ukraine surrender in his earlier statement.

Donald Trump’s lead negotiator has been pushing Volodymyr Zelensky to hand over the entire Donetsk region to Russia in order to end the war in Ukraine, it has emerged.

Steve Witkoff, who has met with Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, five times this year, told the Ukrainian delegation visiting the White House last Friday to surrender the territory its forces control.

It is one of the key demands made by Putin, who made clear in a phone call with Mr Trump last week that he still wants Ukraine to give up the stretch of land as a precondition for peace, The Washington Post reported.

However, the surrender of Donetsk is a red line for Ukraine, which has long refused to cede the territory, which Russia has failed to capture despite fighting since 2014.

This doesn’t seem like a deal Ukraine would be anxious to accept.


Read More: Trump on Russo/Ukraine War: Stop at the Battle Line, Both Sides Go Home





Putin Is Using Muhammad Ali’s Tactics When Dealing With Trump’s Ukraine Peace Efforts


As I wrote on Friday:

At present, Russia controls a large swath of eastern Ukraine, including the Donbas region, the cities of Luhansk, Horlivka, Donetsk, Melitopol, and the port city of Berdiansk. Russia has also seized some key infrastructure, such as the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. This is about 20 percent of Ukraine’s territory, including between 3 and 3.5 million Ukrainians. And these are just the post-2022 invasion territories taken by Russia, which doesn’t include Crimea, which Russia seized in 2014.

That’s a bad deal for Ukraine by any measure, and one they are reportedly unlikely to consider.

Mr Trump, who has called on both sides to “stop the killing” and “make a deal”, has agreed to meet Putin in Hungary within a fortnight.

But the Russian president’s continued insistence on the surrender of Donetsk suggests that a fundamental obstacle towards a ceasefire deal remains.

In the call with Mr Trump, Putin said Russia could cede parts of the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson provinces currently occupied by his forces.

However, a senior European diplomat told The Washington Post that Ukraine would never agree to such a trade.





It’s unlikely Ukraine will consider a trade of what is rightfully Ukrainian territory in exchange for what is rightfully Ukrainian territory; Putin is, in this, just offering to give Ukraine a little bit back of what they have taken. It’s unlikely Ukraine will accept the current lines as they are, either.

The eastern parts of Ukraine, including the Donetsk area, are home to a large number of Russian-speaking people, and that’s a big part of the problem; Vladimir Putin no doubt wants those people to be a part of Russia. The fact that there is a fair amount of mineral wealth in eastern Ukraine is another factor. 

President Trump will be meeting with President Putin in Hungary, in large part to discuss this ongoing war. Whether that meeting will yield any deal to end the war remains to be seen.


Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.

Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.



Source link

Related Posts

On April 12, 2021, a Knoxville police officer shot and killed an African American male student in a bathroom at Austin-East High School. The incident caused social unrest, and community members began demanding transparency about the shooting, including the release of the officer’s body camera video. On the evening of April 19, 2021, the Defendant and a group of protestors entered the Knoxville City-County Building during a Knox County Commission meeting. The Defendant activated the siren on a bullhorn and spoke through the bullhorn to demand release of the video. Uniformed police officers quickly escorted her and six other individuals out of the building and arrested them for disrupting the meeting. The court upheld defendants’ conviction for “disrupting a lawful meeting,” defined as “with the intent to prevent [a] gathering, … substantially obstruct[ing] or interfere[ing] with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action or verbal utterance.” Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows that the Defendant posted on Facebook the day before the meeting and the day of the meeting that the protestors were going to “shut down” the meeting. During the meeting, the Defendant used a bullhorn to activate a siren for approximately twenty seconds. Witnesses at trial described the siren as “loud,” “high-pitched,” and “alarming.” Commissioner Jay called for “Officers,” and the Defendant stated through the bullhorn, “Knox County Commission, your meeting is over.” Commissioner Jay tried to bring the meeting back into order by banging his gavel, but the Defendant continued speaking through the bullhorn. Even when officers grabbed her and began escorting her out of the Large Assembly Room, she continued to disrupt the meeting by yelling for the officers to take their hands off her and by repeatedly calling them “murderers.” Commissioner Jay called a ten-minute recess during the incident, telling the jury that it was “virtually impossible” to continue the meeting during the Defendant’s disruption. The Defendant herself testified that the purpose of attending the meeting was to disrupt the Commission’s agenda and to force the Commission to prioritize its discussion on the school shooting. Although the duration of the disruption was about ninety seconds, the jury was able to view multiple videos of the incident and concluded that the Defendant substantially obstructed or interfered with the meeting. The evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction. Defendant also claimed the statute was “unconstitutionally vague as applied to her because the statute does not state that it includes government meetings,” but the appellate court concluded that she had waived the argument by not raising it adequately below. Sean F. McDermott, Molly T. Martin, and Franklin Ammons, Assistant District Attorneys General, represent the state.

From State v. Every, decided by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals…

1 of 88