Brussels puts the map in Kyiv’s hands in territorial concessions debate

Source: Euractiv

The biggest question hanging over Ukraine’s future is where the new border will lie.

As Washington pushes Kyiv to consider ceding land to secure a peace deal with Moscow, Brussels is now beginning to distance itself from the ongoing debate over territorial concessions to Russia, the biggest sticking point in the negotiations.

“Our position has been clear: no peace agreement can be reached without Ukraine. And it is for Ukraine to decide the actual conditions for peace,” Anitta Hipper, EU spokesperson for foreign affairs and security policy, told Euractiv.

It’s a significant shift for the EU: after almost three years of insisting that borders cannot change by force, officials are stepping back from the most explosive part of any peace deal, putting the ball in Kyiv’s court.

Donald Trump has been pressuring his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, to agree to his peace plan and cede occupied territory to Moscow, including Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk, and parts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. 

While Trump’s manner and approach are clearly different from those of President Bill Clinton during the 1999 Kosovo war and from George W. Bush’s recognition of Kosovo in 2008, he is actually in line with a US inclination to force border changes.

Since the end of the Second World War, Western countries have largely avoided formally accepting changes to borders achieved through aggression. Brussels has recognised neither Russia’s annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol in 2014, nor Turkey’s occupation of northern Cyprus since 1974.

Following a meeting with his European partners on Monday, Zelenskyy cited Ukraine’s constitution, emphasising that the country has no legal or moral right to give up its territories.

Yet Washington’s determination to secure a deal could bring unpleasant surprises to Kyiv and many EU countries, with potentially severe implications for their foreign policy.

Kosovo’s precedent

Unlike member states, the EU as an entity has no legal power to recognise a new state or a change of borders.

In Athens, diplomatic sources are already bracing for the consequences of a peace plan that would cede Ukrainian territory to Russia, in relation to Cyprus. Turkey invaded and occupied the island’s northern part in 1974, a division that has remained unresolved ever since.

“For Greece, the inviolability of borders is non-negotiable, and any illegal act will always find us on the opposite side,” Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said.

However, the secession of Kosovo and its 2008 unilateral declaration of independence may already have set a problematic legal and political precedent for the bloc.

Most EU member states recognised Kosovo’s statehood, but five – Spain, Slovakia, Cyprus, Romania, and Greece – have not over concerns about separatist movements within their own borders.

Russia has repeatedly cited the Kosovo example to justify its aggression toward Ukraine.

In his 2014 speech marking Crimea’s formal incorporation into Russia, Vladimir Putin quoted the “precedent” set by the West, “when they agreed that the unilateral separation of Kosovo from Serbia… was legitimate and did not require any permission from the country’s central authorities.”

For the West, this was a false comparison, as Serbian government forces were violently repressing the Albanian majority in Kosovo.

Michel Foucher, who in 1999 served as adviser to the then-French Foreign Minister Hubert Védrine, told Euractiv that in Kosovo, the Americans pushed for independence to punish former Serbian President Slobodan Milošević. They also wanted to establish a US base intended to monitor the Middle East.

Foucher, a geographer and border specialist, explained that the central issue for Ukraine’s future is the recognition of its sovereignty over what remains of its territory.

“The price to pay could be Donbass, but it is not for me to say. But how can one trust the guarantees that the Russians might provide?”

The recognition scenarios

The French analyst insisted that Europeans agree on the inviolability of borders and, therefore, nobody will recognise the demarcation line as an international border, except perhaps the US.

“China has never recognised the annexation of Crimea; India will not recognise it either, nor will the Europeans. However, this line will de facto serve as a boundary within both countries,” Foucher said.

For Klaus Welle, former secretary general of the European Parliament, and currently chairman of the centre-right EPP-affiliated Martens Centre’s Academic Council, a distinction should be made between de jure and de facto recognition of the situation.

“De facto, parts of Ukraine will remain occupied by Russia, and this cannot be changed for the time being. But that is different from recognising it legally,” he said.

“We might have to live with the fact that parts of Ukraine are occupied, but I see nobody wanting to recognise new borders in law,” he added.

From Panama to Greenland, Trump does not appear overly concerned about international borders. Were he to formally recognise a new frontier between Ukraine and Russia to deepen cooperation with Moscow, there is little doubt that other capitals would find it in their interest to follow suit.

(mm)

The original article: https://www.euractiv.com/news/brussels-puts-the-map-in-kyivs-hands-in-territorial-concessions-debate/ belongs to Euractiv .