Miskeljin: With the change of Ukraine’s borders, Russia’s veto on Kosovo’s status becomes questionable

Marko Miskeljin, a fellow at the Center for Social Stability, stated that it is difficult to imagine that, in negotiations to end the war in Ukraine, the United States would allow Russia to retain Crimea, as that would mean further erosion of international law. For Serbia, he said, the key issue is whether such a scenario would lead to a shift in Moscow’s position on non-recognition of Kosovo.

“If, theoretically, that were one of the things Donald Trump offered Vladimir Putin, then we are certainly talking about consequences that would further undermine international law. What matters to us primarily is that ‘Russian veto’, and whether anything would change in that regard. We have a clear position from Moscow that they will never recognize the unilaterally declared independence of Kosovo,” Miskeljin told Kosovo Online.

He believes that the territorial disputes of Kosovo and Crimea share similarities but also have important differences.

“When we speak of the situation in Kosovo and Metohija, we are referring to a territory under UN administration that unilaterally declared independence. However, Pristina’s goal was full statehood. On the other hand, when we talk about Crimea, we are talking about a territory that is not under UN mandate and that held a referendum, unlike Kosovo, on its choice,” Miskeljin noted.

He points out that the referendum was effectively held under military aggression, which is why it was not recognized by the international community or the United Nations.

“When we talk about Crimea, there is no desire for independence, but rather a wish to join another country, in this case, Russia. So, there are nuances, but the very fact that it is being discussed the way it is perhaps best illustrates the current state of international law,” Miskeljin emphasized.

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

“Of course, except in the case of Serbia, Resolution 1244, and Kosovo and Metohija, where they speak of some so-called precedent. If a precedent is also created in Crimea, then it can no longer be claimed that there is one unique case in which the inviolability of territorial integrity was breached, because it will have happened in Crimea as well. In any case, it is international law that will continue to suffer, no matter what is ultimately decided,” Miskeljin concluded.