By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Zelensky stated that Russia is signaling a desire for the United States to recognize Crimea as Russian territory, a demand Ukraine will never accept due to its constitutional framework. He believes Moscow understands Ukraine will not recognize the claim but is still attempting to push the issue internationally. Any stable and dignified end to the war must not legitimize aggression or violate Ukraine’s constitution, which considers Crimea an inseparable part of the country. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has also rejected Russia’s self-determination argument for Crimea and Donbas, emphasizing the principle of territorial integrity.
Read the original article here
The notion that Moscow is actively seeking United States recognition of Crimea as Russian territory is a significant point of discussion, with President Zelenskyy reportedly highlighting this ambition. This desire from Russia suggests a strategic effort to legitimize its annexation of the peninsula on the international stage, particularly by securing a stamp of approval from a global superpower like the US. It appears to be a key objective in Russia’s broader geopolitical agenda, aiming to solidify its territorial claims and weaken Ukraine’s sovereignty.
If such recognition were to occur, particularly under certain political administrations in the US, it could be viewed as a substantial concession and a move that offers “aid and comfort” to an adversary. The US Constitution itself has provisions that address behavior detrimental to the nation, and the idea of formally acknowledging Crimea as part of Russia would undoubtedly spark debate about adherence to constitutional principles and national interests. The core belief remains that Crimea is unequivocally Ukrainian territory, and any formal US recognition of Russian sovereignty would be seen as a capitulation.
There’s a strong sentiment that instead of considering such concessions, the focus should be on holding Russian leadership accountable. This includes recognizing Vladimir Putin as a war criminal, a stance many believe is a matter of basic truth and justice. The question is raised as to why this fundamental acknowledgement of reality is difficult to achieve, suggesting a perceived weakness or an unwillingness to confront the truth, perhaps even a problematic affinity for the Russian leader.
The strategic ambitions of Russia, particularly concerning Crimea and eastern Ukraine, are seen by some as potentially leading to significant long-term losses for Russia itself. There’s a perspective that Putin’s aggressive actions might ultimately cost Russia valuable territories, with predictions that China could reclaim historical lands in Outer Manchuria and beyond, especially if Russia emerges from the conflict in Ukraine crippled. This suggests a potential miscalculation on Russia’s part, where their current actions could sow the seeds of future territorial erosion.
The idea of a transactional deal where Russia might offer something in return, like recognition of Greenland as part of the US in exchange for Donbas, is met with extreme skepticism and distrust. The very notion of such a negotiation implies a dangerous disregard for established international law and territorial integrity. The argument is made that certain leaders, if they were to entertain such propositions, could not be trusted with vital national decisions.
However, there’s also a pragmatic view that acknowledges the difficulty of reclaiming Crimea, characterizing it as a “fait accompli” due to its annexation and subsequent integration. While recognized as an “evil imperialist land grab,” this perspective suggests that expecting its return might be unrealistic and an obstacle to achieving peace. From this viewpoint, recognizing the de facto reality, however unjust, could be seen as a necessary bargaining chip for a peace settlement, even if it feels like a painful compromise.
The demographic makeup of Crimea, with a significant portion of its population reportedly identifying as Russian and a historical narrative of it being “gifted” to Ukraine by Russians, is sometimes brought into the discussion. This perspective hints at a belief that the population’s desires should be paramount, and the question of self-determination arises. The fundamental idea is that the people of a territory, not external leaders, should decide their allegiance, even if it means independence or the respect of being consulted.
The potential for a US president to accede to Russian demands on Crimea is viewed by some as a deeply troubling prospect, bordering on “treasonous and treacherous behavior.” Coupled with accusations of blatant corruption, this behavior is seen as enabling an adversary without gaining anything substantial in return. The existence of laws that prohibit such actions and the severity of penalties for lesser offenses raise questions about the lack of accountability.
The established legal framework, including congressional acts prohibiting such concessions, is mentioned as a safeguard. Yet, the effectiveness of these safeguards is questioned, particularly when faced with political will or the absence of it. The US political system, with its checks and balances, is seen as potentially unable to act decisively if certain political factions refuse to uphold principles, leading to a sense of helplessness.
The possibility of impeachment is raised as a remedy, but its past failures to achieve lasting consequences lead to skepticism about its effectiveness as a deterrent. The reliance on electoral outcomes, like midterm elections, to shift the political landscape is seen as a potential avenue, but only if the opposing party demonstrates a moral compass, which is often questioned.
A more nuanced observation is that Russia’s demands might be scaling back in other parts of Ukraine, suggesting a realization that outright victory might be unattainable. This perceived weakening of Russia’s position could be linked to their strategic overreach. The motivations of certain US political figures are often attributed to self-interest rather than national or international principles, meaning their alignment with Russia is seen as coincidental to their personal benefit.
The scenario of a US leader capitulating to Russian demands is sometimes painted in vivid, almost darkly humorous terms, portraying a subservient dynamic where the US leader is eager to please, even if it means sacrificing fundamental principles. This vision often includes a scenario where Putin praises the US leader’s “deal-making” skills, leading to an agreement that benefits Russia while the US leader basks in the perceived accomplishment. However, this perspective is also acknowledged as having little basis in reality and might represent a hopeful or fearful projection rather than an objective assessment.
The broader implications of Russia’s actions are also considered. The idea of China potentially benefiting from a weakened Russia, by reclaiming territory in Siberia, is presented. However, this is met with skepticism, as China is seen as unlikely to risk angering a nuclear neighbor. The suggestion that the US might want such a scenario to unfold is also questioned. The territorial integrity of Russia is a sensitive issue, and a destabilized Russia could have far-reaching consequences.
The practical outcomes of recognizing Crimea as Russian are questioned, with the assertion that it would offer no tangible benefits to the US. This leads to an inquiry about the motivations of those who hold opinions contrary to this, particularly if they are not Ukrainian themselves. The historical context of territorial concessions, especially to authoritarian regimes, is highlighted as a dangerous precedent, invoking parallels to appeasement policies of the past.
The long-term outlook for occupied lands in Ukraine is debated. Some believe that future Russian administrations might be willing to relinquish occupied territories to escape European sanctions, but this becomes less likely if those territories are officially recognized as Russian. This underscores the importance of international recognition in solidifying territorial claims.
The concept of “peace in our time,” a phrase often associated with appeasement, is evoked to caution against making concessions that could embolden further aggression. The question of what concrete actions can be taken beyond expressing outrage on social media is a recurring theme, highlighting the frustration with perceived inaction. The complexities of the geopolitical landscape, with multiple demands and shifting alliances, can lead to missing crucial developments, such as specific territorial demands being made by Russia.
The intricate relationship between Russia and China is also a subject of speculation. There’s a view that China is allowing Russia to exhaust itself in Ukraine while strategically acquiring Russian assets. The potential for China to later use the pretext of protecting Chinese speakers in these acquired territories to further expand its influence is a concerning possibility. This suggests a long-term strategic play by China, leveraging Russia’s current predicament.
Ultimately, the core of the discussion revolves around the US position on Crimea and the potential implications of recognizing it as Russian territory. It touches upon issues of national sovereignty, international law, accountability for aggression, and the complex interplay of geopolitical interests. The reported ambition of Moscow to gain US recognition for Crimea as Russian is a critical point, as it represents a significant potential shift in the global order and a direct challenge to Ukraine’s territorial integrity.