President Vladimir Putin’s six-year term, secured in a recent election, is prompting renewed consideration of a stark reality in the war in Ukraine: a formal partitioning of the country along the current lines of control. While Kyiv and its Western allies have consistently maintained a position of seeking full territorial integrity, including Crimea and occupied areas of the Donbas, the failure of Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive and waning Western support are forcing a reassessment of achievable outcomes.
For four years, Ukraine and its supporters have framed their objectives around restoring internationally recognized borders. Initially, Western officials explicitly called for the full restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty, encompassing Crimea, annexed by Russia in 2014 and the parts of the Donbas region under Russian control since the same year. However, this ambition is increasingly viewed as implausible, with both Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Western leaders acknowledging Russia’s de facto control over significant portions of Ukrainian territory.
Despite this shift, a formal recognition of Russia’s territorial gains remains a contentious issue. Opponents argue that such recognition would undermine the principle of territorial integrity, a cornerstone of the post-World War II international order, and potentially embolden future aggressors. They too fear it would represent a capitulation by Ukraine and foreclose the possibility of reclaiming lost territory. However, these arguments are facing increasing scrutiny.
Analysts suggest that the historical record does not support the notion of a consistently enforced norm against territorial conquest. As documented by political scientist Dan Altman, successful territorial conquest has occurred frequently since 1945, often without unraveling the international system. Examples include Israel’s seizure of the Golan Heights in 1967 and Indonesia’s control of Timor Leste. The annexation of Crimea in 2014, following a referendum dismissed as illegal by Ukraine and the West, set a precedent, though one met with widespread international condemnation. The United States, the European Union, and other countries imposed sanctions on Moscow and its officials in response, but Russia’s control persisted.
Russia has already constitutionally annexed Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia, maintaining complete control over the first two regions and significant portions of the others. While Ukrainian counteroffensives in 2022 forced a Russian retreat from some areas, the balance of power has shifted, with Russia now possessing advantages in manpower and materiel. The West’s refusal to recognize Russian control will not alter this reality, according to assessments.
A policy of non-recognition is also unlikely to deter future aggression, as demonstrated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 despite the international community’s non-recognition of Crimea’s annexation. The decision to engage in military action is driven by perceived costs, capabilities, and strategic interests, rather than legal precedent, according to analysts.
Conversely, a formal adjustment of the border, coupled with international recognition, could offer security benefits. A clearly defined border would simplify the determination of responsibility for any future hostilities, facilitating the implementation of sanctions and renewed military support for Ukraine. It could also enable reciprocal troop withdrawals and reduce the risk of accidental escalation.
Beyond security, formal recognition could ease Ukraine’s path toward Western integration and facilitate postwar reconstruction. Accession to the European Union will be challenging under any circumstances, but a stable and defined border would be a prerequisite. Legal certainty over borders would also attract private investment, crucial for rebuilding Ukraine’s economy.
The path forward, as outlined by some analysts, involves both Ukraine and Russia adjusting their constitutional claims to reflect the territory they actually occupy. This would allow for limited, mutually agreed-upon adjustments to the line of control and a period for residents in affected areas to relocate. Ideally, this new border would be recognized and guaranteed by Russia’s partners in BRICS and Ukraine’s international supporters.
As Putin begins another six-year term, the question of a formal border settlement remains unresolved. No immediate diplomatic initiatives have been publicly announced, and both Kyiv and Moscow continue to publicly assert maximalist positions regarding territorial claims.
