Why Recognizing Crimea as Russian Contradicts Decades of American Diplomacy

Will the United States in fact reject its own legal positions outlined in such documents as the Stimson Doctrine and the Welles Declaration, despite their impact on current U.S. actions to non-recognize the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation?

The Origins of the American Non Recognition Policy: The Stimson Doctrine and the Welles Declaration

The Stimson Doctrine, proclaimed on January 7, 1932, was a reaction to the establishment of a puppet regime in Manchuria after the Japanese aggression. Henry L. Stimson, then Secretary of State, emphasized in an official note to Japan and China that the United States would not recognize any situation, treaty, or agreement that was achieved by force or was not in accordance with international law.

In a broader context, this doctrine became a statement of moral leadership of the United States in international politics. Its application had a double meaning: 1) legitimizing law as the basis of the international order; 2) setting a precedent for non-recognition of aggressive expansion. Researchers emphasize that it was after Stimson that an era began when violations of norms were not only not recognized but also challenged at the legal level.

The key significance of the doctrine lies in its codification of the principle ex injuria jus non oritur – a right cannot arise from an offense. This principle subsequently formed the basis of the resolutions of the League of Nations, and since 1945 – the UN Charter, where it was supported as a universal norm.

The Welles Declaration, announced on July 23, 1940, was the US response to the Soviet occupation and incorporation of the three Baltic republics. In it, the United States declared its complete rejection of forced border changes and refusal to recognize the legitimacy of newly established regimes imposed from the outside. The document sends a clear message: any changes imposed by force are not only illegal, but also incompatible with the principles that guide American democracy.

Analyzing the political significance of the declaration, it should be noted that it created a long-term regime of legal and diplomatic isolation of the annexed territories. Even during the Cold War, when the United States sought to limit direct confrontation with the USSR, this principle remained unchanged. Diplomats of the Baltic states continued to have the status of official representatives of independent states in the United States, which was a unique phenomenon in the world practice of diplomacy.

The historical significance of the Welles Declaration lies not only in capturing the moment, but in demonstrating the ability of a democratic state to withstand political pressure and adhere to principles for more than half a century. This has become a benchmark for behavior in similar international conflicts, including the situation with Crimea.

What is the essence of Mike Pompeo's 2018 Crimean Declaration?

In 2014, Russia, in violation of a number of international agreements, including the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, the UN Charter, and the Helsinki Final Act, armed annexed Crimea. This was the first case in the 21st century of a gross violation of the principles of the European system of international relations, where territorial borders are inviolable.

In 2018, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued the Crimean Declaration, which directly reproduced the rhetoric of the Welles Declaration: “As with the annexation of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union in 1940, the United States reaffirms its policy of non-recognition of illegal annexation.”

The Declaration is part of a broader US strategy to prevent the globalization of revisionism – it not only confirms the legal position, but also acts as a deterrent: partner countries receive a clear signal that any support for such actions by the Russian Federation will be considered a violation of international law.

In 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 596, a bill that prohibits any federal agency from taking actions that could be construed as recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea. In 2021, Congress considered a new draft, the Crimea Annexation Non-Recognition Act, which establishes mandatory compliance with the non-recognition policy regardless of the executive branch.

This legislation was an institutional response to the risk of a possible revision of foreign policy in the event of a change of administration. Their purpose is to prevent a situation in which the executive branch can make a decision that contradicts the long-term diplomatic line. Such documents strengthen institutional memory and ensure continuity of position even in times of political turbulence.

From the point of view of international law, the recognition of the annexation of Crimea contradicts not only the provisions of the UN Charter, but also numerous General Assembly resolutions, including resolutions 68/262 and 71/205. They explicitly reaffirm Ukraine's territorial integrity and recognize the annexation as illegal.

Politically, this recognition sets a strategic precedent. It is a de facto invitation to aggression for other authoritarian states that could use similar tactics in any conflict region. Such a precedent could turn the world order into an arena of forceful solutions.

Why U.S. Non-Recognition of Crimea Must Endure for Global Stability

The policy of non-recognition of illegal annexations is not only an ethical postulate, but also a tool for maintaining a global order based on law. From 1932 to 2024, the United States not only declared this position, but also consistently acted within its framework. In the case of Crimea, American diplomacy is not a reaction to the conflict, but the embodiment of a principled doctrine that has been tested by decades of geopolitical crises.

Recognizing the illegal annexation of Crimea would undermine the credibility of the United States as a defender of international law, open the door to new aggressions, and call into question the stability of the international order built on the inalienable right of peoples to self-determination and territorial integrity.

It would also undermine nearly a century of U.S. diplomatic efforts to establish the role of the United States as the primary defender of legal principles in international relations, which have been achieved by numerous prominent U.S. politicians and diplomats by formulating and promoting relevant doctrines and declarations.

Despite maintaining diplomatic relations with the USSR, the United States never “got tired” of not recognizing the annexation of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia throughout the Cold War until the statehood of these nations was restored. This is a great example for American politicians who promise to make America great again.

Petro Oleshchuk, political scientist, Ph.D, expert at the United Ukraine Think Tank