Trump’s Crimea gambit

Given Trump’s policy trend toward dismantling the old order of international relations, unfortunately, I cannot completely rule out such behavior. This fits the style of the U.S. president and would be a major gift to Putin, allowing him to count on a ceasefire.

Even during his 2016 campaign and later, throughout his first term, Trump repeatedly stated that he would consider recognizing Crimea as Russian. “As far as I’ve heard, the people of Crimea would rather be with Russia than where they were,” Trump said in an interview with ABC News in 2016.

"Yes, such a risk exists. And in a certain way, there is also a precedent. In 2019, Trump signed an official order, issued as a presidential proclamation, recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights."

However, no other country officially supported this decision. On the contrary, the international community mostly condemned the move, considering it a violation of international law. The Trump administration’s decision remained isolated.

The problem is that Trump’s “Crimea decision” may not follow the analogy of the Golan Heights decision, but instead gain momentum among countries of the “axis of autocracies” and the Global South.

Trump could take one of three paths:

1. He could issue a presidential proclamation (Executive Order). Trump could issue an order directly recognizing Crimea as Russian territory, canceling previous sanctions or statements adopted after 2014.
2. He could make an official statement from the U.S. State Department. This is the most common tool. Such a statement could be made by the Secretary of State at a briefing or in writing as the official U.S. position.
3. He could submit a draft resolution to the UN. The U.S. could initiate a resolution, or not veto a similar initiative from Russia. This would be the most painful process, as it would lead to turmoil and debate, as a result of which some countries might side with the U.S. position.

Trump’s adventure with Crimea could lead to serious consequences.

First, it would lead to the lifting of sanctions: individual, sectoral, and restrictions on trade and investment in Crimea. It should be noted that some sanctions, especially those imposed by the U.S. Congress, may require a legislative process to be lifted.

Second, it would be an incredible blow to the system of international law and a dangerous precedent for other conflicts, essentially violating the principles of territorial integrity. This could inspire other states to change borders by force. Perhaps Trump is counting on a future annexation of Greenland and plans to use the Crimea precedent as a stepping stone.

Third, it would be another sign of a rift in the transatlantic community. The U.S. would finally lose its status as a guarantor of security in the world.

And fourth, recognizing Crimea as Russian could become a source of increased anti-Trump opposition, both from Democrats and Republicans. This could intensify the decline in trust and support for Trump among those voters who support Ukraine’s fight for territorial integrity (about 40% of U.S. voters). The U.S. Congress will certainly have its critical say.

Source

About the author: Oleh Posternak, political technologist, political consultant, member of the Association of Professional Political Consultants of Ukraine.

The editorial team does not always share the views expressed by blog authors.