Why Zelensky won’t be able to negotiate peace himself | Responsible Statecraft
When it comes to Crimea, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has drawn a clear line in the sand: it’s not up for negotiation. But why is this sliver of land so important, and why won’t Ukraine let it go—even in the name of peace? Let’s break it down.
What’s the Deal With Crimea, Anyway?
Back in 2014, Crimea was suddenly taken over by mysterious masked soldiers—later confirmed to be Russian troops. These so-called “little green men” seized government buildings and quickly established control across the peninsula. Russia’s President Vladimir Putin initially denied any involvement, only to later admit he orchestrated the operation.
Since then, Crimea has been under de facto Russian control, but legally, or de jure, it’s still internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. This legal status matters—a lot.
Why Zelensky Can’t Just Hand Crimea Over
For President Zelensky, giving up Crimea isn’t just politically impossible—it’s unconstitutional. Literally.
According to Article 2 of Ukraine’s Constitution, the country’s territory is indivisible and inviolable. Changing its borders would require a national referendum, something nearly impossible under current martial law.
In Zelensky’s words: “There’s nothing to talk about here.” Crimea is—and will remain—a red line.
Trump’s Peace Plan and the Crimea Conundrum
Former U.S. President Donald Trump has hinted at a peace plan that, reportedly, would involve the U.S. recognizing Crimea as Russian territory. His argument? Ukraine “lost” Crimea long ago and didn’t fight for it in 2014.
But here’s the reality: Crimea was seized during a chaotic political vacuum in Ukraine. Few shots may have been fired, but it wasn’t handed over—it was taken. And according to international law, that matters.
Even Trump’s own Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, once reaffirmed U.S. support for Ukrainian sovereignty, calling Russia’s annexation illegitimate.
So if the U.S. were to recognize the annexation now, it wouldn’t just contradict past policy—it would send a dangerous message to the world: that land grabs can be legitimized over time.
Is There Any Middle Ground?
There was a moment, early in the full-scale war of 2022, when negotiators in Istanbul considered “parking” the Crimea issue—postponing it for 10 to 15 years while working toward broader peace. But that idea never gained real traction.
Zelensky has remained firm. And so have the Crimean Tatars—the peninsula’s indigenous population—who were exiled under Stalin and only recently returned. Leaders like Refat Chubarov insist that Crimea isn’t just land; it’s home. And conceding it would betray Ukraine’s past and future alike.
What’s at Stake If Ukraine Loses Crimea?
This isn’t just about pride or politics. If Ukraine were to give up Crimea under pressure, it would set a global precedent. Countries like Romania and others bordering the Black Sea would feel the ripple effects. It would challenge the authority of international law and embolden other nations to redraw borders by force.
In short: it would be more than a Ukrainian loss—it would be a loss for the rules-based global order.
So… Will Crimea Be the Sticking Point for Peace?
Most likely, yes.
While Trump and other international players may want to move forward and secure peace, the Crimea question remains a major obstacle. And even if a deal somehow sidestepped the issue, it wouldn’t erase Ukraine’s constitutional stance or the public sentiment that Crimea is, and should remain, Ukrainian.
Featured Snippet Summary:
Why won’t Zelensky give up Crimea?
Zelensky cannot legally or politically give up Crimea due to Ukraine’s constitution, public opinion, and international law. Crimea is seen as an integral part of Ukraine, and conceding it would set a dangerous global precedent.
#StandWithUkraine #CrimeaIsUkraine #Zelensky #UkraineWar #InternationalLaw