The Case for Recognizing Russia’s Gains in Ukraine

For four years, Ukraine and its international supporters have framed their objectives in terms of territorial integrity. Initially, the goal was the full restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty, including Crimea and parts of the Donbas region controlled by Russia since 2014. However, following the failure of Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive, a shift has occurred. While outright recognition of Russia’s territorial gains remains off the table, there’s a growing acknowledgment that Russia will maintain de facto control over significant portions of Ukrainian territory. This raises a critical question: is it time for Ukraine, Europe, and the United States to consider formally recognizing the new realities on the ground?

The Flaws in the Current Approach

The refusal to officially recognize Russia’s control is rooted in several arguments. Opponents suggest that compromising on territorial integrity would undermine the post-World War II international order, embolden aggressors, and represent a capitulation by Ukraine. However, each of these arguments is demonstrably flawed. A rigid adherence to non-recognition obscures potential benefits – increased Ukrainian security, facilitated post-war recovery, and greater international stability – that could arise from formally accepting the existing situation.

Drawing a New Border: A Path Forward

A lasting peace agreement, it is argued, should involve establishing a new international border roughly aligned with the current Line of Control. This would necessitate both Ukraine and Russia adjusting their constitutional claims to reflect the territory they actually occupy. While Ukraine would cede territory within its internationally recognized 1991 borders, Russia would require to accept a legally defined border outside the areas it unilaterally annexed. Limited, mutually agreed adjustments to the Line of Control, along with a period for residents to choose their jurisdiction, could also be included. Ideally, this new border would be recognized and guaranteed by key international actors, including Russia’s BRICS partners and Ukraine’s Western backers.

Historical Precedents and the Reality of Conquest

The notion that the international order is fundamentally based on a strong norm against territorial conquest doesn’t hold up to historical scrutiny. Borders have changed frequently since 1945, often as a result of military force. A 2020 study by political scientist Dan Altman demonstrated that successful territorial conquest has been more common in the post-war era than in the 1930s and 40s. Examples abound: Israel’s capture of the Golan Heights in 1967, North Vietnam’s conquest of South Vietnam, and Indonesia’s takeover of East Timor all illustrate this point. While not all conquests are officially recognized, the international system has demonstrably absorbed these changes without collapsing, suggesting that the norm of territorial integrity is often subordinate to power dynamics. Wilson Center

In the case of Ukraine, Russia has already effectively altered the territorial landscape through annexation and control. Despite withdrawing from some areas in the fall of 2022, Moscow now holds significant advantages in manpower and materiel as Western support for Ukraine wanes. Western non-recognition won’t reverse these territorial losses.

Deterrence and the Limits of Non-Recognition

non-recognition won’t meaningfully constrain Russian behavior or deter future aggression elsewhere. The international community’s refusal to recognize Russia’s control of Crimea did not prevent the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Actions in one region don’t necessarily dictate calculations in others, as decisions to use military force are driven by perceived costs, opportunities, and strategic interests. Russia’s experience in Ukraine – a four-year war yielding gains far short of initial objectives – hardly serves as an attractive model for potential aggressors.

Reframing Victory for Ukraine

The argument that de jure recognition equates to Ukrainian capitulation overlooks alternative definitions of success. In the immediate aftermath of the invasion, the primary goal was to preserve Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty – a goal Ukraine has already achieved. Ukraine has forged closer economic, political, and strategic ties with the European Union, fulfilling the aspirations of the 2013-14 Euromaidan protests. Recognizing a new border with Russia doesn’t threaten these achievements and may even facilitate further integration with the West.

The Potential for Future Renegotiation

Ukraine’s ability to regain control of its 1991 territory doesn’t hinge on immediate international recognition. The West refused to recognize the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states for decades, a policy that didn’t prevent their eventual peaceful independence. The primary obstacle to territorial recovery remains Russia’s unwillingness to relinquish its claims and its capacity to enforce them.

Benefits of Formal Border Adjustment

Formal recognition can also enhance security and stability. A clearly defined border simplifies the assignment of responsibility for future hostilities, potentially strengthening deterrence and enabling renewed military support for Ukraine in the event of Russian aggression. It could also facilitate reciprocal troop withdrawals and reduce the risk of accidental escalation. Recognition would deprive nationalist forces in both countries of a key justification for renewed conflict.

Beyond security, a recognized border could ease Ukraine’s path to EU accession and attract the large-scale private investment necessary for post-war reconstruction. Uncertainty regarding borders deters investment and perpetuates a high-risk environment.

Conclusion

While maintaining the illusion of Ukraine’s territorial integrity may be tempting, a peace agreement based on this premise will hinder recovery and increase the risk of renewed conflict. After four years of war, the most viable path to lasting peace lies in an agreement where both Ukraine and Russia acknowledge the reality on the ground and relinquish claims to territory they do not control.