Are land grabs becoming the norm in today's world?
Trump's willingness to cede Ukrainian land to Russia will have global repercussions, but the acceptance of land seizures actually goes back decades, with Israel being a serial offender
Sara Padovan
Are land grabs becoming the norm in today's world?
In the latest round of talks over Ukraine, Donald Trump appeared to make a significant concession. The Guardian reported that, after meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska in August, Trump agreed to back a plan that would see Ukraine cede the Donbass region, as well as Crimea, to Russia in return for ending the war.
A subsequent meeting between Trump, European leaders and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Washington saw the US president backtrack on this somewhat, but the question remains: will the endgame of the war see Western states, notably the US, recognising Russia’s capture of Ukrainian territory?
Why does this matter? For many, seemingly among them Donald Trump, the ends justify the means. Sacrificing Ukrainian territory is a necessary evil to end the war—a realistic and sensible course of action. But there is something bigger at play.
Western states were swift to define Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine as a war of aggression that violated international law. Were they to now accept Moscow’s permanent capture of territory, they would be upending the norm against territorial gain through conquest that has been a pillar of international law since 1945. This could have far-reaching implications beyond Ukraine, increasing the likelihood of wars of conquest elsewhere.
At the end of the Second World War and the foundation of the United Nations, all members signed up to the principle that it is illegal to annexe territory acquired by military force. Chapter 1, Article 2 of the UN Charter outlaws “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”
Western acceptance of Moscow's capture of Ukrainian land would upend the norm against land conquests that has been a pillar of international law since 1945
Elsewhere, the charter notes that the sole exception is self-defence, and most UN members waging wars since 1945 have generally used this to justify their actions, however spurious.
Yet though many wars broke out after the UN was formed, the successful conquest of territory became far rarer than before the Second World War. Many attempted conquests were ultimately unsuccessful, such as Saddam Hussein's attempts to capture Iranian or Kuwaiti land in the 1980s and 90s, Argentina's failed efforts to take the Falkland Islands, or Somalia's disastrous invasion of Ethiopia in 1977.
According to Professor Eugene Kontorovich, writing at Northwestern University School of Law in 2009, depending on definitions, there were only between 12 and 18 successful conquests of territory by force after 1945. Moreover, the majority of these occurred prior to 1975 during the era of decolonisation, when new states disputed colonially imposed borders.
Western states were among the most prominent opponents of territorial capture through force, though this understandably prompted charges of hypocrisy, given European empires had been carved out violently during the preceding centuries. On occasion, such as the 1982 Falklands War or the 1991 Gulf War, some states stepped in to wage military campaigns to push back aggressors.
More often, though, they opted not to recognise territorial conquest, even by allies. Morrocco's capture of Western Sahara in 1975, Indonesia's conquest of East Timor the same year, Iran's seizure of Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs from the UAE in 1971 and, of course, Israel's seizure of Jerusalem, Sinai and the Golan in 1967, were all disputed by Western states (and many others). The US notably refused to accept any of these annexations, while still maintaining close ties with the conquering states.
Soldiers of the Israeli 55th Paratroopers Brigade on their way to the Dome of the Rock after the occupation of East Jerusalem in 1967.
Familiar territory
Were Trump to ultimately accept Russia's annexations, and pressure European leaders and Ukraine to do the same, it would mark a significant US shift—especially given that Washington declared Putin's invasions, the capture of Crimea in 2014 and his 2022 unilateral annexation of four Ukrainian Oblasts were illegal. However, breaking such norms is familiar territory for Donald Trump.
In his first term as president, he broke the US norm against recognising conquered territory three times. In 2017, he appeared to endorse Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem by moving the US embassy. In 2019, he likewise recognised Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights, captured from Syria. Then, seemingly in exchange for signing the Abraham Accords, he recognised Morocco's sovereignty over Western Sahara.
On the one hand, Trump's earlier norm-breaking should not be overstated. It was Bill Clinton who first appeared to accept Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem, stating in the 1993 presidential election campaign he would move the US embassy, even though he and all his successors up until Trump then delayed a Congressional mandate calling for this to be enacted. Similarly, George W. Bush broke with the US' long-held opposition to Israeli settlements in the West Bank by stating that a peace agreement should be based on "facts on the ground," implicitly endorsing Israel's right to retain some captured territory.
But none of these was as blatant a move away from precedent as Trump's first-term recognitions. And the consequences have, arguably, already been seen. While the right wing in Israel was already growing, it is plausible that they were greatly emboldened by Trump's legitimisation of the annexations of East Jerusalem and Golan. Their recent efforts to reconquer Gaza and annexe the West Bank must surely be understood in this context. If the message from Washington is that you can eventually gain legitimacy for your territorial conquests, they will be more willing to try to withstand short-term global opposition.
US Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and Donald Trump's daughter Ivanka officially open the US embassy in Occupied Jerusalem on May 14, 2018.
Global repercussions
Which brings us back to the Ukraine negotiations. Like Israel, Russia could well be emboldened if it ultimately gains recognition for its territorial conquests. This is why Eastern Europeans, such as EU foreign minister Kaja Kallas, an Estonian, have been so outraged by the suggestion of ceding Moscow Ukrainian land, something she has called a "trap that Putin wants us to walk into." After seeing conquest works in Ukraine, why wouldn't he try the same in the Baltic states or Finland?
But the consequences of the international community accepting such an outcome could reverberate far beyond Europe. Other would-be conquerors will be watching. States that have long-held territorial grievances with their neighbours, or that covet valuable land and resources, may begin to reconsider the long-held taboo against territorial gain by conquest. Already, China has been increasing pressure on Taiwan, while India and Pakistan clashed again over Kashmir earlier in the year.
In 1990, George HW Bush intervened in the Kuwait crisis to underline that Washington would not permit the annexation of territory by conquest in his 'new world order.' Today, in Trump's new order, such actions are increasingly looking fair game. Other leaders will be watching the Ukrainian negotiations and taking notes.
