Trump’s proposal to recognize Crimea as Russian would set a dangerous precedent
Expert comment
LToremark
10 June 2025
Rewarding Moscow with Crimea would become a template for future violations of sovereignty and a precedent for states with similar aims – notably China.
Donald Trump’s recent remarks about recognizing Crimea as Russian have let the genie out of the bottle. Whether anyone – particularly the Europeans – can put it back in remains unclear. Recognition of Crimea’s annexation would not only be a symbolic break with longstanding US policy but a seismic blow to the international legal order – and a gift to revisionist powers everywhere. It also risks triggering a major rift between the United States and its European allies, which would be a strategic victory for Moscow.
Related content
Crimea was not always Russian
Most importantly, recognizing Crimea as Russian would set a dangerous precedent. And if there is one enduring principle in international relations, it is the power of precedent – a ‘solution’ applied to one context is likely to repeat itself in another. International norms help guide and judge state behaviour, offers protection from the predatory instincts of great powers and helps mitigate the destabilizing consequences of bad precedents. Trump’s proposal stems from a worldview that accepts – if not embraces – the right of great powers to carve out spheres of influence and redraw borders, by force if necessary. It is a deeply transactional approach to international affairs, in which norms are expendable and history, however contested, is used to justify aggression. Although Trump may believe that suggesting Putin can ‘have’ Crimea will help bring about peace, he is laying the groundwork for legitimizing territorial revisionism – including his own rhetorical claims over places like Canada, Greenland and Panama. While the US is unlikely to launch wars of territorial conquest, Trump’s stance risks emboldening others – most notably China – to use the Crimean precedent in pursuit of similar aims.The dangers of a Crimean precedentSome argue that recognizing Crimea would not change the facts on the ground, Russia has controlled the peninsula for over a decade, more or less unchallenged. One might also argue that norms do not save lives; only negotiations that result in a deal do. But this is only true up to a point. The terms of any peace deal will not only define Ukraine’s future but will also set a precedent for territorial revisionism, which would have global repercussions. First, recognizing Crimea would alter the balance of power in the Black Sea. Moscow would control the longest coastline, including Georgia’s Abkhazia, soon to be the home of Russia’s new naval base. The credibility of multilateral conflict resolution processes would collapse, leaving the disputed territories of Abkhazia and Transnistria permanently under Russian de facto (and potentially legal) control. Crimea would become Russia’s major military base in the Black Sea, leaving Ukraine’s remaining coast – especially the vital port city of Odesa – permanently exposed.
Related content
How geopolitical competition in the Black Sea is redefining regional order
Rewarding Moscow with Crimea would embolden it to capture Odesa and sever Ukraine’s access to the sea altogether. This would not only cripple Ukraine’s economy but also hand Russia leverage over global food security, as it would gain significant control over Black Sea grain exports to the Global South. Russia would dominate maritime trade across the Black Sea and use Crimea as a base to project power beyond the region.Second, formal recognition would severely undermine any future efforts to reverse Russia’s occupation of Ukrainian territories and the four other regions it controls. By suggesting that Crimea should be treated differently, Trump draws a distinction that Russia itself has consistently rejected. At the recent Istanbul talks, Moscow presented a list of conditions for peace: top priority was the recognition of Russian sovereignty over all four Ukrainian regions it currently occupies. There is no legal or normative basis for separating Crimea from the other three territories: all are part of Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders. Only recognizing Crimea would not change the fact that it would be a de facto endorsement of the forceful alteration of borders, a rejection of the principle of territorial integrity, and a legitimization of the war of aggression.
Recognition of Crimea’s annexation would not only be a symbolic break with longstanding US policy but a seismic blow to the international legal order – and a gift to revisionist powers everywhere.
Third, inadvertently encouraging historical and normative revisionism is dangerous. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the principle of uti possidetis juris was adopted to recognize new states within their existing administrative boundaries. Russia now openly rejects this principle, claiming that historically Crimea has always been Russian and that its transfer to Ukraine was a mistake born of national weakness.But all borders are, to some extent, arbitrary – shaped by historical contingency, conflict and compromise. To permit their revision by force based on a selective and self-serving historical narrative is to invite instability far beyond Eastern Europe. It risks unleashing a wave of conflicts globally, not least in Africa, where many state borders remain fragile and contested.
Chatham House: What’s New
