April 25, 2025
Ihor Rosomakha
The status of Crimea remains one of the most consequential and enduring fault lines in contemporary international relations. Since the Russian Federation’s illegal annexation of the peninsula in 2014, the United States has maintained an unambiguous legal and diplomatic position: Crimea belongs to Ukraine.
This position is not rhetorical—it is codified in law. The Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), enacted in 2017, explicitly prohibits any U.S. government recognition of Crimea as Russian territory. It institutionalizes America’s broader commitment to the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the rules-based international order.
The 2018 Crimea Declaration, issued by then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, reaffirmed this stance unequivocally:
“The United States reaffirms as policy its refusal to recognize the Kremlin’s claims of sovereignty over territory seized by force in contravention of international law.”
Congress has gone even further by prohibiting federal funding for any initiative that would support or imply recognition of Russia’s claim to Crimea.
Despite this firmly established framework, President Donald Trump has publicly undermined it. In an April 24th, 2025 Time magazine interview, he declared, “Crimea will stay with Russia.” This statement is not only a brazen violation of U.S. law—it is a signal to autocrats that might trumps right, and that international aggression will be rewarded, not punished, under his leadership.
Trump’s words do not exist in a vacuum. They come amid deepening concerns about his connections to the Kremlin and Russian oligarchs. On April 21, 2025, The Moscow Times revealed that Russian officials had actively explored reviving the “Trump Tower Moscow” project—a 150-story monument to vanity and compromise—as part of a larger effort to manipulate U.S.-Russia relations through Trump’s personal ambitions.
According to sources familiar with the plan, senior Kremlin officials and sanctioned entities—including Rosneft, Rosatom, Polyus Gold, and Rusal—collaborated on proposals tailored to appeal directly to Trump’s business interests. The plan reportedly included a ceremonial groundbreaking attended by Trump himself—an overt attempt to trade flattery and financial gain for geopolitical concession.
This is not diplomacy. This is attempted bribery with a steel-and-glass price tag. The fact that these proposals originated from companies under active U.S. sanctions only deepens the alarm.
These developments are not just unethical—they are a national security crisis in the making. The possibility that a former or future president might shape U.S. foreign policy around personal gain, rather than national interest, threatens the very foundations of democratic governance and constitutional accountability.
This context makes Trump’s Crimea comments even more disturbing. They are not merely the musings of a rogue politician—they fit a clear and dangerous pattern of behavior: disregard for law, deference to autocrats, and entanglement with hostile powers.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and democratic leaders around the world have rejected any suggestion of conceding Crimea. Under Ukrainian law, such a decision would require a nationwide referendum—an unlikely outcome for a country that has paid such a high price to defend its sovereignty.
The United States’ position on Crimea is non-negotiable. It is enshrined in law, grounded in international consensus, and backed by a bipartisan coalition of American lawmakers. Any attempt to reverse this policy would require repealing CAATSA—an act that would amount to nothing less than legalizing surrender to a foreign aggressor.
Trump’s declaration that “Crimea will stay with Russia” is not a gaffe—it is a capitulation. And when paired with the reports of Russian oligarchs preparing multimillion-dollar real estate deals to curry favor, it takes on a darker dimension. This is not foreign policy. It’s influence peddling at the highest level.
Let there be no illusions: Crimea is Ukraine. Recognizing it as Russian would not bring peace—it would embolden dictators, shatter the integrity of international law, and open the door to future land grabs from Taiwan to the Baltics. Trump’s rhetoric—and the Kremlin’s coordinated campaign to exploit his ego—must be called out, confronted, and stopped.
This is not just a fight about borders. This is a fight for the soul of American leadership. The question is no longer just whether the United States will defend democracy abroad—it’s whether it can still defend it at home.