Strange leaks: Media buzz before Trump-Putin call and insider reports on dividing Ukrainian land

Contents

• Insider reports from Semafor: Recognition of Russia's occupation of Crimea
• Insider reports from The New York Times: Major powers 'dividing the world'
• How realistic are the insider claims regarding Crimea and Odesa?

On the eve of today's scheduled phone call between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, the American publications Semafor and The New York Times released high-profile reports. Citing unnamed sources in Ukraine and the US, the media claimed that Trump was allegedly ready to offer Putin serious concessions at Ukraine’s expense in order to accelerate the end of the Russian-Ukrainian war and fulfill his long-standing promise.

Insider reports from Semafor: Recognition of Russia's occupation of Crimea

"The Trump administration is considering recognizing Ukraine’s Crimea region as Russian territory as part of any future agreement to end Moscow’s war on Kyiv, according to two people familiar with the matter," the media reported.

According to Semafor, the White House is even preparing to push the United Nations toward a similar step. The report does not specify whether it would involve a vote at the UN General Assembly or a potential resolution from the UN Security Council.

Journalists note that any moves regarding Crimea are just one of "a multitude of options" being considered by the Trump administration.

Semafor also recalls that several years ago, before the full-scale Russian invasion, Trump had already speculated about recognizing Crimea as Russian, claiming that the peninsula’s residents supposedly "wanted to be with Russia."

Insider reports from The New York Times: Major powers 'dividing the world'

The NYT article draws parallels between today's conversation between Trump and Putin and the post-World War II division of the world among major powers, which was discussed at the Yalta Conference in 1945.

On the eve of the call, speaking with journalists aboard his presidential plane, Trump announced that the conversation with Putin would be about "land," "power plants," and "dividing up certain assets," as usual avoiding specifics. This likely refers to the fate of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant and which parts of sovereign Ukrainian territory will ultimately remain under Russian control.

"The Trump administration has already made clear it expects Russia to control the land that its troops already command, roughly 20 percent of Ukraine. But aides to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine said last month they were concerned that Mr. Trump may entertain Mr. Putin’s other desires for parts of Ukraine, perhaps including the critical port of Odesa," the NYT writes.

The report does not mention the possibility of the US recognizing Russia’s occupation of Crimea. Instead, it highlights past comments by Trump's national security adviser, Michael Waltz: "Are we going to drive every Russian off of every inch of Ukrainian soil, including Crimea?" Waltz asked rhetorically in a recent interview.

However, as NYT points out, it is far from certain that Ukraine and Europe will agree to whatever Trump and Putin might discuss today.

How realistic are the insider claims regarding Crimea and Odesa?

According to an associate expert of the Institute of American Studies, Oleh Prelovskyi, American media do not react as sensitively to discussions about what territories Ukraine might have to sacrifice as European media do. This is logical since such discussions involve redrawing parts of the European continent and making concessions to an aggressor that has threatened more than just Ukraine.

The expert also does not rule out that rumors about Odesa's port, recognition of Crimea as Russian, or redrawing borders could be controlled leaks to test the reaction — gauging how ready Ukrainian society and, more broadly, Europe is to opening this Overton window a little wider.

"This 'window' is opening gradually. At the start of the invasion, it seemed unthinkable to give up any Ukrainian territories, and we believed we had to fight to the 1991 borders. Over time, the framework has shifted — how reasonable is it for people to keep dying when territories are not being reclaimed militarily, the front has essentially frozen, and neither side is making significant advances? The Overton window keeps opening further and further," Prelovskyi told RBC-Ukraine.

Ukraine, through its president and numerous politicians, military officials, and civilians, has consistently declared its red lines — one of which is the refusal to legally recognize occupied territories as belonging to the aggressor.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Andrii Sybiha, also emphasized in an interview with RBC-Ukraine that the non-recognition of any occupied Ukrainian territory is a fundamental point for Ukraine.

Furthermore, RBC-Ukraine has never heard from either Ukrainian or Western officials that anyone seriously demands that Ukraine legally recognize the occupation — rather than, for example, renouncing the military recapture of territories. (Even in this scenario, Crimea, parts of Donbas, and all other occupied lands would still remain an integral part of Ukraine under the Constitution and official state policy.)

During territorial discussions in Jeddah, where participants indeed worked with maps, there was no talk of any territorial concessions from Ukraine. Rather, the discussion may have been about Ukraine regaining some (likely not very large) areas currently under occupation. Meanwhile, the idea of allowing Russians into Odesa — where they have never been during the full-scale war — seems outright fantastical. However, one cannot entirely rule out that such ideas might at least be discussed in Trump-Putin’s talks.

Today, March 18, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will have a phone call, around 5 p.m. Kyiv time. As expected, the main topic of the conversation will be the Russia-Ukraine war, the temporary ceasefire, and the preparation of a final peace agreement.