The Price of Peace in Ukraine
The Shifting Sands of Sovereignty: Why recognising New Borders May Be Key to Ukraine’s Future
For four years, the narrative surrounding the war in Ukraine has centered on territorial integrity. However, a growing consensus suggests that clinging to the idea of restoring Ukraine’s 1991 borders is increasingly unrealistic and may even be counterproductive. The failure of Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive has forced a reluctant reassessment, with both Ukraine and Western leaders acknowledging Russia’s de facto control over significant portions of Ukrainian territory.
The Flaws in the “No Concessions” Approach
The steadfast refusal to formally recognize Russia’s control isn’t based on historical precedent. Throughout the post-World War II era, borders have repeatedly shifted as a result of conquest. Examples include Israel’s seizure of the Golan Heights in 1967 and Indonesia’s control of Timor Leste. The international system absorbed these changes, demonstrating that the norm of territorial integrity is often “more aspirational than essential,” and frequently subordinated to power dynamics.
Territorial Integrity Already Compromised
Russia has already constitutionally annexed Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia, maintaining complete control over Luhansk and Donetsk, and significant portions of the others. While Ukrainian pressure led to Russian retreats from some areas in late 2022, the balance of power has shifted, with Russia now possessing advantages in manpower and materiel. The West’s non-recognition won’t alter this reality.
Deterrence Doesn’t Depend on Recognition
International non-recognition of Russia’s control over Crimea didn’t prevent the 2022 invasion. Actions are driven by perceived costs, capabilities, and strategic interests, not legal precedent. Concerns about aggression in other regions, like the Middle East and East Asia, persist regardless of the situation in Ukraine.
The Case for a New Border
A durable peace settlement may require drawing a new international border coinciding with the current line of control. This would necessitate both Ukraine and Russia adjusting their constitutional claims. Ukraine would cede territory within its 1991 boundaries, while Russia would accept a border short of its unilaterally annexed territories. Limited, mutually agreed-upon adjustments and relocation options for residents could also be included.
Reducing the Risk of Escalation
Territorial disputes are more likely to escalate to armed conflict than other types of interstate disagreements. Europe’s peaceful postwar order began with a redrawing of borders after World War II. Similarly, border settlements in Central Asia since 2017 have contributed to increased stability and economic growth.
Formal recognition of a new border would simplify determining responsibility for renewed hostilities, facilitating snapback sanctions and renewed military support for Ukraine in case of Russian aggression. Reciprocal troop withdrawals would also lower the risk of inadvertent escalation.
Facilitating Integration and Reconstruction
An internationally recognized border could ease Ukraine’s path toward Western integration and facilitate postwar reconstruction. Accession to the European Union will be more complicated with an undefined and unstable eastern boundary. Legal certainty over borders would also attract private investment, essential for rebuilding Ukraine’s economy.
Beyond the Immediate Conflict
Maintaining the illusion of Ukraine’s territorial integrity hinders reconstruction and increases the likelihood of renewed conflict. A deal recognising the reality on the ground, with both Ukraine and Russia renouncing claims to territory they don’t control, offers the surest path to an enduring peace.
FAQ
Q: Would recognising Russia’s control embolden other aggressors?
A: Historical evidence suggests that international response to aggression is driven by strategic interests and capabilities, not solely by legal precedent.
Q: Does this mean Ukraine is giving up on reclaiming its territory?
A: It acknowledges the current reality while preserving the possibility of future renegotiation if the balance of power shifts.
Q: What about the people living in the occupied territories?
A: A settlement could include provisions for residents to freely relocate to the jurisdiction of their choice.
Q: Is this a concession to Russia?
A: It’s a pragmatic step towards a sustainable peace, recognising the current situation and focusing on Ukraine’s future security and integration with the West.
Did you know? Territorial disputes have a higher probability of escalating to armed conflict compared to other types of interstate disagreements.
Pro Tip: Focusing on Ukraine’s security guarantees and economic integration with the West may be a more achievable and beneficial long-term strategy than pursuing the complete restoration of its 1991 borders.
What are your thoughts on the future of Ukraine’s borders? Share your perspective in the comments below. Explore our other articles on international relations and conflict resolution for more in-depth analysis. Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest updates and insights.