In Quebec, President Trump held a press conference. David Herszenhorn of Politico asked about Crimea: Should it be recognized as Russian? Trump gave a non-answer, to wit,
Well, you know, you have to ask President Obama, because he was the one that let Crimea get away. That was during his administration. And he was the one that let Russia go and spend a lot of money on Crimea, because they’ve spent a lot of money on rebuilding it. I guess they have their submarine port there and such. But Crimea was let go during the Obama administration. And, you know, Obama can say all he wants, but he allowed Russia to take Crimea. I may have had a much different attitude. So you’d really have to ask that question to President Obama — you know, why did he do that? Why did he do that? But with that being said, it’s been done a long time.
It has been four years. As I listened to Trump, I thought of Obama in 2009, in the third month of his presidency. He was in Turkey talking to students, and he said, “When it comes to climate change, George Bush didn’t believe in climate change. I do believe in climate change. I think it’s important.” I slammed Obama for this many times. I don’t believe presidents should criticize their predecessors on foreign soil, except in rarest circumstances. I cling to this belief (to use a famous, or infamous, Obama word).
The Soviet Union held the Baltic states, among others, for 46 years. The United States never recognized this annexation. Our stance was known as “non-recognition.” Some experts counseled against this stance, on the basis of realism and pragmatism. “What are you going to do, budge the Soviet Union? We must deal with the facts on the ground.” Others said it was important to honor international law. Otherwise, the world would be a free-for-all, with the spoils going to the militarily strong.
In 2016, I traveled to two of the Baltic states — Latvia and Estonia — and heard a lot about this non-recognition. It was highly important to Balts. For one thing, it made their ultimate transition to independence easier: Their international status was different from that of other Soviet “republics.” Our stubborn non-recognition made a difference.
Speaking in the Estonian capital, Tallinn, in 2014 — months after the Kremlin’s annexation of Crimea — President Obama said, “Just as we never accepted the occupation and illegal annexation of the Baltic nations, we will not accept Russia’s occupation and illegal annexation of Crimea or any part of Ukraine.”
That is a line worth holding, I think. In fact, that’s the way a Latvian journalist put it to me in 2016, when we were talking about Crimea: “hold the line.” Obviously, the Crimean situation is different from that of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. But the principle of international law holds, and borders should not be rearranged by force (or fake referenda).
Thus far, only eight nations have recognized Putin’s control of Crimea. In alphabetical order, they are Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe. The United States should not join them.