For four years, the conflict in Ukraine has been framed by Ukraine and its supporters around the principle of territorial integrity. Initial calls from Western officials focused on restoring Ukrainian sovereignty over all internationally recognized territory, 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, with Ukraine and Western leaders acknowledging Russia’s likely continued control over conquered territories, while still refusing to formally recognize altered borders.
A Question of Recognition
The resistance to formally recognizing Russia’s control stems from arguments about international relations and Ukraine’s future. Opponents believe compromising territorial integrity threatens the entire international system and could embolden aggressors. They as well view ceding territory as Ukrainian capitulation, while nonrecognition preserves the possibility of future reclamation. However, these arguments are described as flawed, and a formal acceptance of Russia’s gains could potentially increase Ukraine’s security, aid reconstruction, and contribute to stability.
A durable peace, the analysis suggests, could involve establishing a latest international border aligned with the current line of control. This would require both Ukraine and Russia to adjust their constitutional claims. Ukraine would cede territory within its 1991 borders, while Russia would accept a border short of its unilaterally annexed territories. The arrangement could include adjustments to the line of control and allow residents to relocate. Ideally, this border would be recognized and guaranteed by Russia’s partners and Ukraine’s supporters.
Historical Precedent
The idea that international order relies on a consistently enforced norm against territorial conquest is challenged by historical examples. According to political scientist Dan Altman’s 2020 study, successful territorial conquest has occurred at a higher rate in the postwar era than in the 1930s and 1940s. Instances cited include Israel’s seizure of the Golan Heights in 1967, North Vietnam’s conquest of South Vietnam, and Indonesia’s control of Timor Leste. While not all conquests are formally recognized, the international system has absorbed these changes.
Ukrainian territorial integrity has already been violated, with Russia controlling Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk completely, and portions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. While Russia retreated from some areas in 2022, the balance of power has shifted, with Moscow now possessing advantages in manpower and materiel. The West’s nonrecognition will not alter these territorial losses.
nonrecognition is unlikely to deter Russian behavior or other potential aggressors. The refusal to recognize Russia’s control of Crimea did not prevent the 2022 invasion. Actions are driven by perceived costs, capabilities, and strategic interests, not legal precedent.
Reframing Victory
Defining the war’s stakes solely in territorial terms suggests Ukraine has already lost. However, the initial priority for Ukraine and its backers was the preservation of independence and sovereignty, which has been achieved. Ukraine has also forged closer ties with the European Union, fulfilling the demands of the 2013–14 Euromaidan protesters. Recognizing a new border would not jeopardize these achievements.
The possibility of reclaiming territory does not depend on formal recognition. The West previously refused to recognize the Soviet Union’s annexation of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania for decades, without success. The primary obstacle to restoring Ukraine’s 1991 territory remains Russia’s refusal to relinquish its claims and its capacity to enforce them.
The Surest Path Forward
Formal recognition of a new border could enhance security by providing a clear dividing line, simplifying the determination of responsibility for hostilities, and facilitating sanctions and military support in case of further aggression. It could also enable reciprocal troop withdrawals and reduce the risk of escalation. It would deprive nationalist forces in both countries of a justification for renewed conflict.
An internationally recognized border could also ease Ukraine’s path toward European integration and facilitate postwar reconstruction. Legal certainty over borders would attract private investment, essential for rebuilding.
A peace deal that ignores the reality on the ground—a mismatch between legal claims and actual control—will hinder reconstruction and increase the risk of renewed conflict. Acknowledging the current situation and renouncing claims to territory not controlled is presented as the surest path to lasting peace.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the current position of Ukraine and Western leaders regarding Russia’s territorial control?
While Ukraine and Western leaders continue to categorically reject formal recognition of Russia’s control over Ukrainian territory, they have reluctantly conceded that Russia will maintain de facto control over much of the territory it has conquered.
What historical examples are used to challenge the idea that territorial conquest is always unacceptable?
Examples include Israel’s seizure of the Golan Heights, North Vietnam’s conquest of South Vietnam, and Indonesia’s control of Timor Leste, demonstrating that the international system has absorbed territorial changes without unraveling.
What benefits are suggested from formally recognizing a new border between Russia and Ukraine?
Formal recognition could enhance security by clarifying responsibility for hostilities, facilitating sanctions, and reducing the risk of escalation. It could also ease Ukraine’s path toward European integration and attract investment for reconstruction.
Given the complexities of this conflict, what steps might realistically lead to a more stable future for Ukraine and the region?
