Donald Trump has accused Volodymyr Zelenskyy of harming peace negotiations after the Ukrainian president said Kyiv would not recognise Russian control of Crimea.
The future of Crimea is thought to be at the centre of Trump’s peace plan for the region, despite Zelenskyy repeatedly ruling out recognising Russian control of the region, which was annexed by Moscow in 2014.
The exact terms of the deal are yet to be revealed, but reports, first published by Axios, suggest they include the US recognising Crimea as a legal part of Russia.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
Sign up for The Week’s Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Writing on Truth Social, Trump claimed a deal to end the war was “very close”, but that Zelenskyy’s refusal to accept US terms “will do nothing but prolong” the conflict.
Vice President J.D. Vance gave some further detail over the US vision for a peace deal earlier this week, saying it would “freeze the territorial lines… close to where they are today”.
He said the deal would mean Ukraine and Russia “are both going to have to give up some of the territory they currently own”.
For the US to recognise Crimea as part of Russia would be a major reversal of Washington’s post-war policy, said The Guardian. The White House would be “effectively endorsing a Russian effort to redraw the borders of Europe by force”.
And for Zelenskyy, renouncing Crimea as an indivisible part of Ukraine would be “unconscionable”. It is also a move he has rejected several times as politically and constitutionally impossible, said the BBC.
“There’s nothing to talk about here,” said Zelenskyy on Tuesday. “This is against our constitution.” Indeed, Article 2 of the Ukrainian constitution states that the country’s sovereignty “extends throughout its entire territory”, which “within its present border is indivisible and inviolable”. “Any change to Ukraine’s territory has to go to a national referendum, which must be authorised by the Ukrainian parliament,” said the BBC.
Crimea is often wrongly thought of as a “special case” by “well-intentioned advocates of an urgent negotiated peace”, said Chatham House, partly due to the erroneous view that the region is “more historically Russian” and “predominantly Russia-leaning”. But these arguments “dangerously fail to address a fundamental point” – that a Crimea concession would not only be a change to the recognised 1991 borders, but “a reward to Russia for its aggression”. It would “not only fail to deter the Russian regime’s campaigns to steal the territory and sovereignty of its neighbours. It would confer legitimacy on them.”
Legitimising a land grab goes far beyond Ukraine, said the Robert Lansing Institute. Far from ending the war, such a decision “could open the floodgates to a world where borders are drawn by tanks, not treaties”.
What next?
“There is no sign a deal is actually close,” said Axios, particularly now that Ukraine has rejected Trump’s plan. Kyiv sees Trump’s proposals as “heavily biased toward Russia, with Moscow getting clear-cut wins and Kyiv only vague promises”.
Any further progress was also stalled when US Secretary of State Marco Rubio pulled out of Ukraine talks taking place in London on Wednesday. This happened “when it became clear that Ukraine wanted to discuss Trump’s previous proposal of a 30-day ceasefire rather than his new peace framework”.
