The U.S. peace proposal that reached the media also included a provision recognizing the territories conquered by Russia de facto and the occupation of Crimea de jure. Host Epp Ehand asked Mälksoo how much such a peace proposal would upend the current world order.

"This is a rather significant moment in history. The very rule in international law that territory cannot be annexed as a result of the use of armed force was originally proposed by the United States. It began in the late 1920s. The U.S. has stood by this principle for nearly a century — that you cannot simply seize territory this way. And if they are now, under President Trump's leadership, ready to change this policy, I would say it is quite a major concession to Russia," Mälksoo replied.

According to Mälksoo, the problem is that the impact would not be limited to the Russia-Ukraine situation alone, because such decisions always have the potential to set a precedent. "There are other cases where the status of a territory was changed through the use of force, such as in Northern Cyprus, and it has not been recognized for the simple reason that force was used, violating that fundamental rule. If Russia now receives de jure recognition of Crimea, then similar questions will arise in other situations as well — why, for instance, should Turkey not receive some form of recognition for Northern Cyprus? What would make the cases different?" Mälksoo said.

Mälksoo added that while de facto recognition might be considered temporary, it is also more dangerous. "De jure recognition at least brings a certain degree of clarity. If Ukraine were at some point to recognize that Crimea now belongs to Russia, then under international law, Ukraine would no longer have the right to reclaim it or, even more so, to use force. In that sense, de facto recognition is dangerous. Meanwhile, Russia has already enshrined these territories in its constitution, thereby pushing the problem into the future. One thing we can learn from the history of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union is that things don't remain as they are. This interim period can last until the final status is determined, and the issue may be revisited 10 or 20 years later, when conditions are more favorable," Mälksoo explained.

"International law has always developed through a dialogue between different principles. On the one hand, there is the very clear principle that you cannot seize territory through the use of force. On the other hand, there is also a highly democratic principle in international law that says we should listen to what the people themselves actually want. And the idea that territorial changes resulting from conquest are not recognized is based on the notion that, to some extent, it does not matter what the people think or prefer, because force has been used and the fundamental rule has been broken," Mälksoo said.

"But there has always been this unspoken question hovering over Crimea — what do the people there really want? What should be done with territories that legally belong to one country, such as Ukraine, but where a portion of the population holds certain pro-Russian sentiments?" Mälksoo continued.

"It would also set a very bad precedent for Estonia and Latvia if this became a legitimate basis for intervention, because in the end, it could be used somewhere like Daugavpils or Narva," he said.

Host Epp Ehand then asked what Mälksoo's response would be if Estonia and Europeans were forced to choose between supporting Ukraine and international law or prioritizing their alliance with the United States.

"I would support international law," Mälksoo replied. "That agreement should not require elaborate or fundamental explanations. But in reality, Estonian sovereignty also means that no country, including the United States, can dictate to us," he added.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!