Readers Write: Ukraine “peace plan,” trans rights

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

I’ve been following the peace plan proposal to end the war in Ukraine, and looking especially for what concessions Russia will be making as part of this process. The concessions that Ukraine is expected and is being pressured to make include accepting freezing territorial lines, acceptance of the annexation of Crimea by Russia and a prohibition on becoming a member of NATO. When the president was asked what Vladimir Putin is doing to help forge a peace deal, his answer was “stopping taking the whole country, pretty big concession.”

Russia was the aggressor, has rained destruction on cities, towns and infrastructure, killed thousands of civilians, is alleged to have committed war crimes, and that is their only concession? It would appear that if the current administration is in its corner, Russia can make any aggressive moves it wants and there will be no consequences. I would think countries like Poland, the Baltic states and others adjacent to Russia should be extremely worried about how this so-called “peace plan” is unfolding. A better term for this process might be total capitulation by Ukraine.

Ron Bender, Richfield

•••

Imagine that your neighbor broke into your home, assaulted your family, took over one of your bedrooms and kidnapped one of your children. He pays a crew to periodically attack your family and vandalize other parts of your home. Your neighbor claims he is entitled to your home because his grandparents once owned it. It doesn’t matter to him that his grandparents voluntarily split their adjoining properties into separate lots, and that you have legally owned your home for over 30 years.

You are outnumbered and ask for help in fighting back. Those who had previously promised to help protect you were initially supportive. But then they told you that you must let the intruders stay in your home because you had injured some of them during their initial invasion. They also told that you are just too weak to win and they are tired of helping you. Now, today you are told that there is only one way to stop the physical destruction of your family and home. You are told you must agree to a “settlement” on the following terms:

Your neighbor will not be evicted, does not have to repair the damage he caused or return your child. He just has to agree to stop assaulting your family and destroying the part of the house where you still live. There is no mechanism to enforce this ceasefire. Outrageous? Far-fetched? This is exactly what is happening to Ukraine.

Janet Werness, Minneapolis

•••

After reading the “Vance pushing pro-Russia peace plan” article on April 24, I am dismayed and alarmed in equal measure. A so-called “peace” proposal that cements Russian takeover lines is a slap in the face to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the heroic three-year struggle of his Ukrainian people since the invasion by Russia. If Putin had invaded the U.S. and taken over several states, would President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance be proposing that we give in to a “peace” deal that would let Russia keep them? Added on to the complete disrespect shown to Zelenskyy during his White House visit, I am truly ashamed at the callousness of this administration.

Greg Block, Minneapolis

•••

So Trump and Vance want to trade Crimea to the Russians for a peace deal. I have a better idea. Let’s trade Florida to Russia. I’m sure Putin would rather have the beaches of Miami than the beaches of Ukraine. For that matter, why not just give him southern Florida, and trade the northern half to Denmark for Greenland. You know, “The Art of the Deal” that the president is so good at. He could move Mar-a-Lago to Greenland and call it Terra Verde.

Richard Crose, Bloomington

•••

So much for “The Art of the Deal.” Trump’s ongoing sellout of Ukraine and NATO is shameful. His inept negotiating will place him in history books (along with 1930s British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain) as a poster boy for the folly of appeasing international aggressors.

Dan McInerny, Victoria

Two recent Minnesota Star Tribune stories illustrate my concern that the DFL and Minnesota party leaders are not focused on the most urgent and high-priority issues or strategic actions. As a party, we need to win elections and recapture power by gaining popular support for high-profile initiatives.

First, the state of Minnesota suing the Trump administration over trans rights (“State sues over anti-trans orders,” front page, April 23). I support trans rights but argue that strategically it’s a mistake to prioritize this legal battle — at this moment. Second, the Hennepin County attorney declining to prosecute a Tesla vandal (“Authorities won’t charge man caught on video vandalizing Teslas in Minneapolis,” StarTribune.com, April 22). Justice needs to be applied equally, even when the criminal acts are committed on behalf of righteous causes.

I anticipate that these highly visible actions will trigger right-wing backlash, which will be weaponized against the DFL and the party writ large. I’d like to see the DFL prioritize more popular issues that affect more Minnesotans. For example, sue DOGE officials on behalf of Minnesota farmers whose USAID contracts were broken, leaving soybeans to rot in silos and shipping yards. Seek legal remedies for farmers and small-business owners harmed by the tariff wars. Attack the administration for allowing DOGE to steal citizens’ private data from government databases, putting us at risk of identity theft and fraud — and threatening our national security.

To drive down Trump’s favorability ratings and win over voters, Democrats should shine a light on the Trump administration’s corruption and incompetence, rather than fight over identity politics and culture wars. Winning elections is critical for blocking Project 2025’s and DOGE’s destruction of our democracy. Without a functioning democracy, we can’t advance any liberal causes.

Jean Storlie, Golden Valley

•••

I hesitate to write this letter because I fear many of my progressive friends will think I am choosing to agree with Trump. Make no mistake, I reject almost everything he has said and done — both as a candidate and as a president.

No, I am not siding with Trump. I am siding with people who fought to assure equal opportunity for girls and young women to participate in sports. We give too much attention to sports, compared to the attention we pay to young musicians, biologists or auto mechanics, but sports build character and teach teamwork just as other pursuits do. Girls deserve every opportunity to play and compete.

So, what about transgender young people who want to play sports? I’m not sure I know the answer. I’m OK with someone identifying as something other than male or female. I am happy to have that person as a neighbor, a work colleague or a friend. I want them to have every opportunity that I have.

But a person born a biological male opting to identify as transgender does not make them a female. I know there aren’t many examples of young people born male taking a roster position or an athletic scholarship away from girls and young women, but girls and young woman deserve full equal opportunity to compete.

Still, I regret that the president has tried to play this issue for political gain. I am not sure what I think of Ellison’s suit against the Trump administration, but I am deeply distressed that the president of the United States threatens to use the power of the federal purse to punish states that don’t conform to his personal opinions.

J. Fonkert, Roseville