Asking
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Will Trump Suggest to Putin That Russia Offer to BUY parts of Ukraine?

If Russia continues prosecuting the war, without U.S. military assistance (or a huge increase from other NATO countries) Ukraine is at a big disadvantage. The don't have the manpower and Putin is willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of Russians.

Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy rightfully says that Ukraine should not be forced to give up land.

So the question becomes at what cost is a continued war to Russia?

You would think Trump, after all the decades he's been in the real estate business, would at least offer this as a solution: have Russia offer to BUY the Donbass region and possibly other contested regions in the east.

Putin isn't going to pay war reparations. But in this way, Ukraine could get a large sum of money to help rebuild what Russia has destroyed. (And make Russia may for Crimea, too).

According to a Pentagon study, military operations in Ukraine have cost Russia up to $211 billion and the country has lost $10 billion in canceled or paused arms sales. At least 20 medium to large Russian naval vessels have been sunk in the Black Sea and 315,000 Russian soldiers have either been killed or wounded.

And that was as of February 2024.

Considering what several more years of war will cost Russia, the costof military operations alone will be between a $500 billion and $1 trillion dollars. And that doesn't include the devastating toll on the Russian economy.

Russia controls about 20% of Ukraine, roughly around 43,000 square miles. Or about 27,520,000 acres.

According to the Ukrainian Ministry of Agrarian Policy, the price of agricultural land in January 2025 was 48,622 hryvnias ($1,150 US) per hectare. A hectare is 2.47105 acres. So the going cost per acre at the beginning of the year was around $465 US per acre.

Paying Ukraine a trillion dollars, about $40 an acre, for that land would be a bargain! Not quite as good as the Louisiana Purchase but a far better deal that Poland got during its first two partitons of the country by other powers. And Ukraine could spend a sizeable chunk of that money on defense.

Now, let me be clear, I am NOT in favor of this. If I were sitting behind the Resolute desk, I might want to go to Alaska this summer. But it would be to see the Northern Lights and to inspect our missile defense sites, not to meet the Ruskies. And I would ask Congress to provide far money in weaponry to Ukraine and lobby our NATO allies to do the same, while almost boosting our own defense budget to $1 trillion per year.

But Trump is going to be in the White House for another 3 1/2 years. And before anyone says anything about Trump's health, JD Vance would be far worse for Ukraine than Trump!
Top | New | Old
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
There is no amount of money that anyone could offer Putin for any part of Ukraine. He needs it all just to justify the strategic value.

I actually ran this through ChatGPT yesterday. The strategic value is immense.

Complete control over the Black Sea is incalculable. That's not other resources in Ukraine either.
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@DeWayfarer The ease with which the Crimea was taken made Putin overconfident and he overplayed his hand. If his military had been as good as they were on paper things would have been different. But assimetrical warfare is a tricky beast. Ask the Americans..😷
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@DeWayfarer On that we agree. But trump rarely has any idea what he is doing..😷
basilfawlty89 · 36-40, M
Is Trump gonna sell parts of the US too?
I'd like to buy Nantucket. The whole place, yes.
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
This is yet another Epstein distraction and for local consumption for Putin. How can any deal be possible when one side isnt even invited to the negotation.? Its hard to believe even Trump supporters will believe this..😷
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@beckyromero OK. Smaller populist issues that playesd well with the locals no doubt. But it hardly qualifies her to run a foreign policy or an economy............Thinking that through....You may have a point. America wont have a foreign policy or an economy pretty soon...😷
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@whowasthatmaskedman
But it hardly qualifies her to run a foreign policy or an economy

That would have been "President" John McCain's job.

But "qualifications" for vice president is far more than just about experience. What's much more important is character, vision, belief in the president's policies, personal integrity and one's own sense in what direction the country should go.

Lyndon Johnson had a boatload of experience. So did Gerald Ford. George H.W. Bush was better prepared to be president than just about anyone in our history. LBJ and Bush41 certainly had great achievments. But they all failed to be elected a second time (in Ford's case, just even his first).

There was a caricature of Palin during the campaign that was grossly unfair because the media was so enamoured by Obama. They hated Hillary, too.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@whowasthatmaskedman

One more thing on Palin.

There's a reason why a former commissioner on Alaska's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and governor of the state wasn't nominated by Donald Trump to be Secretary of Energy.

And it sure wasn't because of her unpopularity. Gaetz, Hegseth, RFK Jr, Gabbard, Noem, etc.

It was because the oil industry warned Trump that Palin wouldn't play ball. So he picked an industry executive instead.

 
Post Comment