Ukraine talks: will Russia get Crimea?
Representatives of Ukraine and key European allies are meeting in London today to discuss a potential solution for peace. US special envoy Keith Kellogg will also be attending. Reports in US media according to which Washington would be prepared to recognise Crimea (annexed by Moscow in 2014) as Russian are causing a furore, as is Trump's reported ruling out of Nato membership for Ukraine.
US breaking its own rules
Recognising Crimea as Russian territory would contradict US foreign policy principles, emphasises political scientist Viktor Shlinchak in a Facebook post republished by Glavkom:
“Before the US demands a 'solution' for Crimea from Ukraine, it should first publicly renounce the Crimea Declaration signed in 2018 (which, incidentally, was not adopted during the term of 'hated' Biden, but under the first Trump administration). In particular, it reaffirmed the non-recognition of Russia's annexation of the peninsula. ... This declaration was based on the Stimson Doctrine, which states that the US will not recognise territorial gains by force under any circumstances. This principle is almost a hundred years old.”
Don't give up yet
Any territorial concessions would be premature and therefore a mistake, Berlingske argues:
“If Crimea or other parts of the occupied Ukrainian territories are to come into play, it should only be as a bargaining chip and not as a gift to Russia ... One can also imagine a compromise that involves agreeing to disagree on disputed territories and postponing a final decision for later negotiations. However, prematurely giving up Crimea would mean increasing the pressure on the attacked party in the war. The US and Europe should agree to do exactly the opposite, but we must face reality.”
Write off Crimea and Nato accession
The Ukrainian leadership should drop its unrealistic demands for a peace agreement once and for all, The Daily Telegraph counsels:
“Are both demands [that Kyiv abandon its claims to Crimea and Nato membership] gross violations of Ukrainian sovereignty? Undoubtedly. ... Does Ukraine actually have any practical military or diplomatic path to winning back Crimea? Or does Kyiv have a realistic chance of actually joining Nato as a full member, against the strong objections of many key Nato states? The answer to both those questions is no. In practical terms, by conceding Crimea's new sovereign status or by becoming officially neutral Ukraine loses nothing that it has not already lost.”
Will borders start shifting?
For Neatkarīgā the question of the Crimea's affiliation is a matter of principle:
“Since the signing of the Helsinki Final Act in 1975, which stipulates the inviolability of borders, not a single border change has been recognised under international law anywhere in the world. ... Nowhere has the territory of one country been annexed to another. If the annexation of Crimea to Russia were to be recognised internationally, this would mean the end of the current principle of inviolability of borders which could trigger a wave of shifting borders worldwide. With all the consequences that would entail. It is therefore difficult to imagine that Ukraine and Europe would be prepared to take such a step. Unlike Trump, for whom neither laws nor lessons from history apply.”
Escalation inevitable
Ukraine and the EU must prepare for an intensification in Russia's attacks, writes blogger Alexander Kochetkov on Facebook:
“Zelensky could only sign such a peace agreement in an aeroplane - on his way to a permanent exile from which he cannot be extradited. So he won't do it. We must therefore expect Russia's aggression to increase, with the intensification of missile and drone attacks on our cities. Whether the front line remains relatively stable will depend on how well we and the Europeans manage to establish new supply chains for weapons and ammunition without US involvement.”