Trump has said there is no more Ukrainian Crimea

A senior adviser to US presidential election winner Donald Trump, Brian Lanza, has said that the new administration in Washington will focus on achieving peace in Ukraine, rather than allowing the country to return Russian-occupied territories, including Crimea. The BBC reports that.

'And if President Zelensky sits down at the negotiating table and says we can only achieve peace if we have Crimea, he shows us that he is not serious. There will be no more Crimea," Lanza told the BBC.

He added that if the priority for Ukraine is to get Crimea back and "make American soldiers fight to get it back," then you are "on your own."

Lanza emphasised that he has great respect for the Ukrainian people, but the priority for the US is "peace and stopping the killing".

It should be noted that after Trump's election, the Wall Street Journal wrote that Trump's plan stipulates that Kiev will promise not to join NATO for at least 20 years, and the US will continue to send Ukraine weapons in exchange. Russia and Ukraine allegedly have to agree to a demilitarised zone of more than 1,200 km.

In October, the Financial Times wrote that Foreign Minister Andriy Sibiga allegedly discussed the possibility of a compromise with Russia during his visit to New York, but this information was not officially confirmed.

It is known about Lanza himself that he was the most senior adviser to Trump's 2016 election campaign. As the Agency writes, in 2018 he was accused of lobbying the interests of Russian businessman, billionaire Oleg Deripaska, who was trying to get rid of American sanctions. Sanctions were imposed on Deripaska for involvement in the interference in the 2016 American elections, which he rejected. The American authorities also consider him close to the Kremlin and accuse him of supporting the aggressive actions of the Russian authorities against Ukraine. In 2019, Deripaska sued the US Department of Justice, seeking the lifting of personal sanctions. In March 2022, an American court finally rejected this lawsuit by Deripaska and upheld a previous court decision, according to which the restrictions of the US Department of Justice are recognized as reasonable and legal.