Can U.S. recognition of Crimea influence the Status of Kosovo?

U.S. President Donald Trump claims he is getting closer to achieving peace in Eastern Europe, which would include recognizing Russia’s sovereignty over Crimea. Experts interviewed by Kosovo Online warn that redrawing Ukraine’s territory could trigger a domino effect in international relations. They remind that a precedent was already set in 1999 with Kosovo. The main questions now are whether the cases of Crimea and Kosovo can even be compared, and who would benefit more from such an outcome—Belgrade or Pristina.

Written by: Djordje Barovic

The White House announced Friday that the U.S. is withdrawing from mediation efforts between Ukraine and Russia and is changing the "methodology of its contribution" to negotiations.

“We will continue to provide support, but we will no longer travel the world as mediators in meetings. Now it’s up to the two sides. It’s time for them to present and develop concrete ideas on how to end this conflict. That will be up to them,” stated White House spokeswoman Temi Bruce on Facebook.

She added that Kyiv and Moscow must now present concrete proposals for ending the war and meet directly to resolve the conflict.

The decision to withdraw from negotiations came just a day after the U.S. and Ukraine signed what was described as a “historic agreement” launching the first partnership of its kind for Ukraine’s recovery and long-term economic success.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio had already signaled the possible withdrawal from negotiations on May 2.

He stated at the time that Moscow and Kyiv were moving closer to resolving the conflict.

“They’re still far apart. Closer, but far. A breakthrough will be needed soon. President (Donald Trump) will decide how much more time we will devote to it,” Rubio clarified.

He also reiterated the claim that Ukraine cannot count on full territorial integrity.

“Ukraine won’t be able to push Russia back to where it was in 2014,” Rubio told Fox News.

The Crimean Peninsula has been under Russian control since March 2014.

On March 11 that year, the Crimean parliament adopted a declaration of independence from Ukraine, followed five days later by a referendum that confirmed it.

This referendum was not recognized by any major international actor, including the UN, but on March 17, 2014, Crimea officially became part of the Russian Federation.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has repeatedly stated since the beginning of the war in Ukraine in 2022 that the “principles of the UN Charter are more relevant than ever,” and that problems arise precisely because those principles are not respected.

He said the West picks and chooses the principles that suit its interests, with the best examples being Crimea and Kosovo.

Ending the war in Eastern Europe was one of Trump’s campaign promises, and after winning a second term, he stated multiple times that his peace plan involves Crimea remaining part of Russia.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has consistently rejected that idea.

“Ukraine will not legally recognize any temporarily occupied territory. I believe this is a completely just position. It’s legal not only from the standpoint of Ukraine’s Constitution but also from the standpoint of international law,” said Zelenskyy.

Dismantling Legal Norms and the ‘Russian Veto’

Marko Miskeljin from the Center for Social Stability says it’s hard to imagine the U.S. allowing Russia to keep Crimea in peace negotiations, as that would further erode international law.

“If, theoretically, that were one of the things Donald Trump offered Vladimir Putin, then we’re talking about a further dismantling of international law. What matters to us, of course, is the ‘Russian veto’ and whether anything would change regarding it. Moscow has made it clear it will never recognize Kosovo’s unilaterally declared independence,” Miskeljin told Kosovo Online.

He says Kosovo and Crimea share similarities but also critical differences.

“In the case of Kosovo, we’re talking about a territory under UN administration that declared independence unilaterally. Pristina’s goal was full statehood. On the other hand, Crimea was not under UN mandate and held a referendum—unlike Kosovo—to determine its future,” Miskeljin explains.

He notes that the referendum in Crimea was held under military pressure, which is why it’s not recognized globally or by the UN.

“In Crimea’s case, there was no aspiration for independence but rather for joining another country—Russia. So there are nuances. But the mere fact that this is being discussed as it is shows the state of international law,” Miskeljin emphasizes.

He warns that recognizing Crimea could weaken the West’s narrative of “moral superiority” and its insistence on the territorial integrity of UN member states.

“Of course, with the exception of Serbia, Resolution 1244, and Kosovo and Metohija, where they speak of a so-called precedent. If another precedent is set with Crimea, one can no longer claim that Kosovo was a unique case that justified violating territorial integrity. That would now also apply to Crimea. In any case, international law will continue to suffer regardless of what is decided,” Miskeljin concludes.

Domino Effect and Geopolitical Context

Political analyst Artan Muhaxhiri from Pristina believes the status of Crimea is a crucial issue that could produce a domino effect.

“This is a very important issue, and if it happens, it will trigger a domino effect in the geostrategic and geopolitical context,” Muhaxhiri told Kosovo Online.

He points out that while there are similarities between Crimea and Kosovo, the contexts differ because Yugoslavia disintegrated during a war.

He believes that if Ukraine accepts Russian sovereignty over Crimea, it will change “the entire context.”

“It would change the perception of Kosovo. I believe it would even make it easier for Russia or China to accept the new reality regarding Kosovo–Serbia relations, possibly even refraining from blocking Kosovo’s UN membership. I’m not sure they’d recognize Kosovo’s independence, but they might remain neutral in the Security Council—which would be a major, tectonic shift,” says Muhaxhiri.

He adds that Ukraine’s stance will ultimately determine Crimea’s fate.

“It all depends on Ukraine’s willingness to accept it, and in what political format or design that would be done,” he says.

Paranoia vs. Reality

On the other hand, Petar Ivic from the Pupin Initiative says that American recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea could provoke a sense of paranoia in Pristina that Serbia might attempt something similar in Kosovo.

“If the U.S. formally recognizes Crimea, Pristina’s administration might fear that Serbia could do something similar, even though that’s unrealistic given Serbia’s peaceful and constructive approach in the dialogue,” Ivic told Kosovo Online.

He also argues that Kosovo’s 2008 declaration of independence gave Russia a political and historical precedent to justify its actions in Crimea.

“The developments in Kosovo since 2008 are actually what led to what’s happening with Crimea. The situation in Kosovo served as a political and historical precedent for Vladimir Putin to attempt annexation and justify it through historical and political lenses. He saw the precedent in Kosovo’s case,” Ivic says.

He emphasizes that Kosovo and Crimea differ more than they align.

“The first major difference is that in 2008, Kosovo unilaterally declared independence, whereas Crimea never declared independence—it was annexed into the Russian Federation. Kosovo’s declaration was unilateral and illegitimate, though peaceful, while Crimea was annexed through armed intervention in 2014,” Ivic concludes.