Russia and Ukraine have been locked in a deadlock for more than three and a half years, with each side hoping to break the other, and the end of the war of attrition seemed in sight. The re-election of Donald Trump as US president in November, who during the election campaign promised to end the conflict within 24 hours of taking office in January and said he had a "very clear plan" to do so, has raised some hopes, however. Today, more than 100 days later, the end of the war is still not in sight, and Trump himself said back in March that he was "a little sarcastic" when he made this promise, writes BTA.
And while the negotiations continue, with optimistic statements alternating with pessimistic ones, the US president has floated the idea of Crimea remaining Russian as part of a future peace agreement. Russia undoubtedly welcomes the idea of internationally recognizing its control over the peninsula, which it seized from Ukraine in 2014. As for Kiev, it has categorically rejected this possibility.
"Our position remains unchanged. "All temporarily occupied territories belong to Ukraine," Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stressed last week.
According to experts, recognizing Crimea as Russian would seriously undermine the positions of the authorities in Kiev, with many Ukrainians wondering why their country had to make so many sacrifices in the fight to preserve its territories only to then give them up so easily.
Zelensky cannot afford to give up the peninsula, the BBC commented, predicting that he will not do so.
In addition to the fact that this is prohibited by the Ukrainian constitution itself, the head of state reminded that Trump himself recognized Crimea as Ukrainian in 2018. - during his first term as US president.
Moreover, if a land grab, unrecognized by the international community, were approved by the United States as legal, what would that mean for international law and the principles of the UN Charter?, asks the BBC rhetorically.
Experts interviewed by Agence France-Presse, in fact, warn that the possible recognition of Crimea as Russian would shake the international legal order, and predict that its very legality could be called into question.
A de jure (legal) recognition would contradict the principles that underlie the international order established with the creation of the UN, the experts in question emphasize.
Since 1945, when the world organization was founded, international law has been based on the prohibition of aggressive war and the self-determination of peoples. Changes to borders between countries can only be made by mutual consent.
As a result, "there has not been a single case of a state expanding through military conquest of foreign territory in the last 80 years", notes Phillips O'Brien, a professor at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland.
Ely Tenenbaum of the French Institute of International Relations commented that forcing Ukraine to recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea would constitute "a return to the right of conquest".
"It would send a message that it might be advantageous, at least for the great powers, to violate this prohibition on the use of force", adds Lauri Melksoo, a professor at the University of Tartu, Estonia. According to him, recognizing Crimea would represent "a major change" from the perspective of the United States, which in 1932 perceived the Stimson Doctrine, according to which they do not recognize annexations carried out by force.
Such a precedent could have "extremely destabilizing, even catastrophic consequences for world peace", warns Michel Epperling, a professor at the "Max-Planck" Institute in Frankfurt, Germany. He notes that this would bring the minority issue back into full force.
"One only has to look at the arbitrarily drawn borders in Africa and the Middle East and the ongoing border disputes in Europe, where Hungary still disputes (the legacy of) the 1920 Treaty of Trianon", Eperling gives examples.
According to Lauri Melksoo, Donald Trump has already opened Pandora's box by recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Syrian Golan Heights and Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara.
A similar position, adopted since last summer by France regarding this disputed African territory, is also "extremely dangerous", Eperling points out.
In order for Ukraine to sign the relevant agreement with Russia, it will be necessary for it to make changes to its constitution and then for the transfer of Crimea to be confirmed through a referendum, notes Agence France-Presse.
"In principle, all contracts concluded under duress are null and void", reminds Lauri Melksoo.
Therefore, everything will be a matter of interpretation. Possibly one day, for example, if the balance of power changes, Ukraine could demand Crimea back.
In September 2022, Russia announced the annexation of four more Ukrainian regions that it had partially occupied: Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia. The United States does not intend to recognize this annexation. But by agreeing to cede Crimea, Ukraine would set a precedent, summarizes AFP.
For Phillips O'Brien, things are clear: Kiev's possible refusal of Crimea would be "the beginning of the end in Russia's plan to finish Ukraine".
High-ranking representatives of the Russian authorities have hinted at greater territorial ambitions in Ukraine, the Institute for the Study of War commented on its website. The Washington-based think tank specifies that they refer specifically to the Black Sea coast.
American analysts admit possible plans for an offensive in the Dnipropetrovsk region, which has no outlet to the Black Sea.
But it seems, at least at this stage, that Ukraine has no intention of recognizing Crimea as Russian. Yesterday, US Vice President J.D. Vance himself predicted that the war would not end soon. As a result, over 38 months after February 24, 2022, both sides in the conflict remain of the mindset that the outcome of the war will be decided not at the negotiating table, but on the battlefield.