How does the European stance on the annexation of Crimea affect the settlement in Ukraine?

In an interview with Time Magazine on April 24, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump stated that the Crimean Peninsula would remain under Russian control. Earlier that month, a draft peace agreement in Ukraine emerged, with the United States moving toward recognizing Russia’s annexation of Crimea. This approach was met with a firm rejection from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who asserted that Crimea is Ukrainian territory that cannot be ceded. Similarly, the Europeans maintained a comparable position, proposing an alternative negotiating plan that would postpone discussions of regional issues until after a comprehensive ceasefire was achieved, highlighting a divergence within the Western camp regarding the terms of a settlement in Ukraine.

European Objection

The European position on Russia’s annexation of Crimea is based on several considerations:

Principled Rejection of Any Recognition of the Russian Annexation:

The European Union holds a strict legal and moral stance that refuses to recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea, stemming from its commitment to international law and respect for state sovereignty. European chief diplomat Josep Borrell emphasized that any potential U.S. recognition of the annexation would serve to legitimize military occupation. This stance is not merely an expression of solidarity with Ukraine; it is a defense of the rules of the global order that prohibit military expansion and imposing facts on the ground. Therefore, Europeans believe that any concession on the issue of Crimea would set a dangerous precedent that threatens the continent’s stability and weakens deterrence against expansionist ambitions in other regions of the world.

Fears of Similar Consequences to the Policy of Appeasement in 1938:

The U.S. approach toward recognizing the annexation of Crimea brings to mind the Munich Agreement of 1938, during which European powers made concessions to Nazi Germany at Czechoslovakia’s expense in an attempt to avoid war. Europeans perceive that accepting a similar policy toward Russia could destabilize Europe’s security system, as occurred post-Munich. European diplomats fear that recognition of the annexation “would encourage Moscow to continue its expansionist policies.” Consequently, European officials warn that such a course undermines the foundations of peace in Europe established after World War II, threatening to unleash a new wave of regional conflicts.

French Emphasis that the Source of the Crisis is Moscow, Not Kyiv:

France has emerged as a leading nation rejecting any attribution of blame to Ukraine for the ongoing conflict. In remarks made by President Emmanuel Macron during his visit to Madagascar on April 24, 2025, he stressed that U.S. discontent should focus solely on Putin, indicating that “Moscow is the aggressor and responsible for the continuation of the war, not Kyiv.” This position reflects a French diplomatic approach that refuses to impose pressure on Kyiv to force concessions regarding its sovereignty while turning a blind eye to Russian actions. Macron also stated that the issue of Crimea should not be raised at this time, affirming that this matter can only be resolved according to international law and with the consent of the involved parties, not through externally imposed deals.

European Fears of U.S. Abandonment of the Continent’s Security:

The growing U.S.-Russian rapprochement, especially amid frequent visits by Steve Whitehouse to Russia and his four meetings with President Vladimir Putin, the latest of which was on April 25, 2025, raises deep concerns in Europe that Washington may undertake a strategic retreat from its security commitments on the continent. Some European circles worry that any bilateral understandings between Washington and Moscow could marginalize European interests and redraw the influence map in Eastern Europe without European participation.

This scenario drives Europe to enhance its defense independence, as evidenced by initiatives aimed at strengthening collective European military capabilities away from NATO. Therefore, any deviation in U.S. policy regarding Ukraine becomes a catalyst for Europe to accelerate the construction of an independent security system in anticipation of unforeseen American positions in the future.

Warnings Against Opening the Door to Border Conflicts in Other Areas:

European leaders warn that American recognition of the annexation of Crimea could create a dangerous precedent that encourages escalation of border disputes in areas like the Caucasus or the Balkans, where existing tensions await such signals to explode. Additionally, China might view this American recognition as a precedent justifying its influence expansion in the South China Sea.

For this reason, Europe perceives the Crimean issue as transcending Ukrainian borders, becoming a matter related to the maintenance of the international order that prevents changes to borders through force. Thus, the refusal to recognize the Russian annexation is part of a broader European strategy to protect the stability of the international system and prevent the replication of the Crimean model in other geopolitically sensitive areas.

Alignment of the European Position with the Demand to Preserve Ukraine’s Unity: Europeans consider that the territorial integrity of Ukraine is not just a Ukrainian matter but a continental security issue. Paris, Berlin, and London express this position through continuous support for Ukraine, along with a clear rejection of any negotiating solutions that might involve territorial concessions. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, during her meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky on April 26, 2025, affirmed her support for achieving a fair and lasting peace that maintains Ukrainian unity, indicating a rejection of any deal that forces Kyiv to cede Crimea. Moreover, Britain and France, as nuclear powers, have committed to providing security guarantees to Ukraine in any future scenario, further strengthening the European stance against legitimizing the results of Russian aggression.

Future of Negotiations

Europe’s firm stance against the annexation of Crimea will have direct implications for negotiations regarding Ukraine:

Potential Frustration of Rapid Solutions that Washington Seeks to Impose: The European refusal to recognize the annexation of Crimea has contributed to the disruption of the peace plan proposed by Putin to U.S. envoy Steve Whitehouse in early April 2025, as reported by the Financial Times. This plan included provisions to solidify Russian sovereignty over Crimea in exchange for a cessation of hostilities, but it faced outright European rejection. This clash led to the postponement of the London summit scheduled for April 23, 2025, aimed at discussing the details of this initiative, disrupting American efforts to reach a swift agreement to end the conflict, as Europeans see such settlements as not addressing the root causes of the problem but rather cementing the status of occupation, prolonging negotiations and complicating the attainment of a final solution.

Reinforcement of the European Role as a Central Player in Any Negotiation Process: The postponement of the London summit dedicated to peace negotiations regarding Ukraine, which was supposed to bring together the United States, Europe, and Ukraine, underscores the extent of existing disagreements among the parties, especially concerning U.S. proposals that included recognition of Russian control over Crimea. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was scheduled to participate in this summit; however, his participation was canceled, and he was replaced by the U.S. special envoy for Ukraine, General Keith Kellogg, lowering the level of U.S. representation in the negotiations.

In this context, the meeting held in Paris at the Élysée on April 17, 2025, which brought together representatives from the United States, Europe (France, Britain, and Germany), and Ukraine, was a significant milestone demonstrating the Europeans’ determination to work collaboratively with Kyiv for a comprehensive ceasefire, ensuring that no agreement undermines Ukraine’s sovereign interests. This meeting reflected the Europeans’ efforts to enhance their presence in the negotiations regarding Ukraine and prevent their marginalization in any potential settlement.

Increased Support for Kyiv to Strengthen Its Negotiating Position: In the face of American pressures to push Ukraine toward accepting territorial concessions, Europeans are adopting a strategy to support Kyiv’s resilience both militarily and politically to enhance its negotiating conditions instead of succumbing to demands that threaten its territorial integrity. This support manifests in intensified military aid and reconstruction programs aimed at strengthening Ukraine’s position against Moscow. Recently, these pressures have increased as President Donald Trump has ramped up his rhetoric against President Volodymyr Zelensky, accusing him on his Truth Social platform of lacking leverage while expressing dissatisfaction with Kyiv’s hardline statements regarding Crimea at a time when he perceives that an agreement with Russia is nearing.

In response, Zelensky on April 23, 2025, released an official statement from the American administration dating back to 2018 (during Trump’s previous administration), reiterating its rejection of the annexation at that time, reflecting Kyiv’s adherence to its principled positions despite the changing political mood in Washington. In this context, Europeans continue to support the Ukrainian stance to prevent Kyiv from finding itself isolated amid joint American and Russian pressures.

Stimulating Discussion on the Future of European Security: The divide between the United States and Europe over recognizing the annexation of Crimea may accelerate discussions regarding the enhancement of independent European security, as major European nations such as France and Germany, especially following Trump’s return to power, are contemplating the development of an independent collective defense system capable of addressing regional challenges without excessive reliance on NATO or the United States. This vision is reflected in plans for increased European defense spending and the development of joint military industries as a step to fortify the continent against potential future threats arising from unilateral settlements between Washington and Moscow, which may not account for full European security interests.

Developing a Comprehensive European Approach to Compensate for the Limitations of American Settlements in Ukraine: The failure of the partial ceasefire aimed at protecting energy infrastructure, which was agreed upon during a phone call between Trump and Putin on March 18, 2025, has motivated Europeans to intensify their cooperation with Ukraine in strategic areas related to energy and reconstruction. This ceasefire, which came into effect on March 25, 2025, for a period of thirty days, experienced repeated violations, with 29 recorded Russian breaches by April 11, 2025, according to American acknowledgment.

After it became clear that the partial ceasefire failed to achieve field stability due to the absence of effective monitoring mechanisms, Europeans will attempt to fill the gaps highlighted by the limited American approaches, which focused on partial settlements that did not hold up in the field by striving to build a solid foundation for any comprehensive settlement that protects Ukrainian interests and strengthens its resilience against ongoing Russian pressures.

Lengthening the War as a Lower-Cost Option Than Sovereign Concessions: Stalling negotiations among the parties involved in the Ukrainian conflict may prolong the war—a scenario European capitals anticipate but simultaneously deem less damaging than accepting concessions that affect Ukrainian sovereignty. From Europe’s perspective, upholding legal principles related to the territorial integrity of states is a priority that cannot be sacrificed under the pressure of swift settlements. This position is exemplified in the Europeans’ refusal to concede Crimea as part of a peace deal, despite American pressures aimed at settling the conflict, which could practically mean solidifying Moscow’s control over nearly 18.5% of Ukrainian territory (i.e., Crimea and large parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia). Europe views continued military and economic support for Kyiv as a means to prevent Russia from imposing a fait accompli, thereby reinforcing Ukraine’s resilience against any negotiating pressures. This European support coincides with a decline in American public interest in the Ukrainian issue, as surveys show that 77% of Republican supporters believe that Washington is not responsible for defending Ukraine against Russia, adding pressure on the U.S. administration to pursue a rapid settlement.

Threatening Unity of the Western Position in Any Future Crises: The U.S.-European disagreement over Crimea might contribute to deepening division within the Western camp, thus weakening its unity in facing other crises, such as in the South China Sea or the Iranian nuclear program. European capitals perceive that the rapprochement between Washington and Moscow, through repeated meetings between Whitehouse and Putin, sends misleading signals to other global powers, suggesting that the West is no longer united. Therefore, Europeans cling to their stance refusing to recognize the annexation of Crimea as a means to ensure future European resilience against similar challenges.

In conclusion, despite American pressure to achieve a speedy peace agreement ending the Ukrainian-Russian conflict, Europe insists on balancing the urgent need to end humanitarian suffering on one hand, with the preservation of legal principles that prevent rewarding aggression on the other. This challenging balance between ending the war and maintaining Ukrainian sovereignty makes the negotiation process fraught with complexities, as Europeans strive to prevent the imposition of a settlement that may temporarily end the fighting but threatens Europe’s long-term stability.