Why did the issue of Crimea’s occupation unexpectedly become a focal point in talks aimed at concluding the war, as suggested by the Americans? What significance does this region hold for Russia, and how might it influence potential future peace negotiations? Find out more in the RBC-Ukraine’s article linked below.
Takeaways:
Crimea unexpectedly became the focal point in discussions aimed at concluding the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, placing Ukraine in an unfavorable position.
This pertains to the legal acknowledgment of the annexed peninsula as territory belonging to Russia—at least by the United States. This idea was initially introduced during a gathering on April 17 in Paris within the recommendations aimed at concluding the conflict, which were conveyed by the U.S. to both Ukraine and its European partners.
Despite every available means, both publically and privately, Ukraine has conveyed to the United States that such framing of the situation is absolutely unacceptable for Kyiv. This stance was backed up by European countries. On April 22, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy declared that Kyiv refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of Crimea’s annexation because it contravenes the nation’s constitution. In reaction, U.S. President Donald Trump posted on his account at Truth Social stating, “Nobody is requesting Zelenskyy to accept Crimea as part of Russia.”
Axios’ sources within the U.S. administration say that Zelenskyy personally outlined Ukraine’s stance to Trump during a gathering at the Vatican. Nevertheless, just one day later, on April 27, Trump claimed that according to him, Zelenskyy seemed willing to relinquish Crimea, which Russia has annexed.
“Oh, I believe so,” Trump responded when asked if he thought Zelenskyy was prepared to “relinquish” the peninsula.
This approach from the Americans can be seen as a standard negotiating strategy: they aim to ” anchor” a particular issue by repeatedly emphasizing it (“Crimea must be acknowledged as Russian”) to make it subsequently challenging for other negotiators to dismiss or alter this stance.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, during an interview with O Globo, stated that international acknowledgment of both Crimea and other occupied territories is crucial. Therefore, this issue remains unresolved.
Military significance of Crimea
Several elements render Crimea crucial for Russia. Because of its geographic position, it retains substantial importance for Russian military strategy. Additionally, the function of the peninsula appears to be evolving more rapidly than elsewhere in this region.
From as early as the 19th century, Crimean naval bases like Sevastopol have been crucial for housing Russia’s fleet in the Black Sea. By the 20th century, military operations expanded with the addition of air capabilities—Soviet strategic bombers such as the Tu-22M and Tu-95 were also based on the peninsula. This development held significant importance due to the proximity of nations aligned with the Soviet Union across Eastern Europe.
Russian forces positioned close to the occupied Crimean parliament building (photo: Getty Images)
Pavlo Lakiychuk, who heads the security programs at the Centre for Global Studies ‘Strategy XXI’, told RBC that Crimea functioned as an ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier.’ This was because it was surrounded by Romania and Bulgaria, both part of the Warsaw Pact. If a Tu-22 aircraft took off from a Crimean runway with the aim of targeting U.S. aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean Sea, for instance, it would have needed to gain cruise altitude over central Romania.
With the collapse of the USSR, this factor was neutralized. Especially when Romania and Bulgaria joined NATO. And since the range of cruise missiles carried by Russian bombers allows them to operate from bases on the Russian mainland, Crimea ceased to be a base point for them.
Nevertheless, following 2014, the peninsula became a launching pad for assaults against the southern areas of Ukraine. In 2017, Russia established an assault force in the region, which played a role early in the comprehensive invasion. Additionally, the military facilities on the peninsula were bolstered.
“It’s an extensive area designated for storing weaponry and air defense systems. Additionally, there are airstrips where aircraft operate. Certainly, missile launchers for different kinds of rockets can be found here as well. Furthermore, Shahed drones are present,” stated military analyst Oleksii Hetman to RBC-Ukraine.
Meanwhile, Sevastopol’s significance as a naval base has diminished. Effective strikes by Ukrainian forces obliterated much of the Russian fleet along with significant parts of their military facilities in Crimea. The remnants were compelled to move further inland—to locations such as Novorossiysk, Tuapse, and Ochamchira in Abkhazia.
“Every single repair facility and warehouse is located in Sevastopol, which has proven to be a significant error. These resources should have been distributed elsewhere. As soon as our defenders started targeting Sevastopol, we realized that the fleet had to be relocated,” observed Lakiychuk.
Nevertheless, occasionally, Russian warships find themselves compelled to head back to Sevastopol, providing Ukraine with fresh chances for offensive actions.
“Sevastopol continues to be somewhat of a bottleneck. While facilities are available in Novorossiysk and Tuapse, finding places for repairs proves challenging since all the maintenance plants are located in Sevastopol,” the specialist highlighted.
In the event of a truce, Russia will undoubtedly try to restore the damaged naval and aviation infrastructure. However, constant threats of Ukrainian strikes can at least make basing in Crimea uncomfortable.
Sacred importance of Crimea
In order to legitimize the annexation of Crimea, Russia initiated a propaganda effort well before 2014. This campaign encompasses various historical accounts claiming supposed connections between the region and Russia. These narratives revolve around several key moments in history: the baptism of Prince Vladimir the Great at Khersones near Chersonesus in the 11th century, Catherine the Great’s incorporation of Crimea into Russian territory in 1783, as well as the defense of Sevastopol during both the Crimean War from 1853-1856 and WWII from 1941-1942.
Nevertheless, Kremlin historians began discussing these connections just within the past several decades. To most Russians, Crimea held significance primarily as a destination for leisure activities: retirement army personnel sought seaside retreats (“dachas”), while the broader public viewed it as an affordable getaway, albeit one often lacking top-tier services.
“Crimea held significance for Russians solely after Ukraine gained independence from the Soviet Union. Prior to this, notable events included Sevastopol being designated as a Hero City. However, besides the two sieges of Sevastopol, Crimea did not hold particular importance for Russians,” stated historian and Armed Forces officer Oleksandr Alfyorov to RBC-Ukraine.
Meanwhile, numerous facts escape the attention of Kremlin propagandists as these facts dismantle all their theoretical constructs.
The annexation of Crimea by Russia through military force violated international agreements. This event led to an influx of ‘non-titular-confessional individuals,’ specifically those who were Muslim rather than Orthodox, as well as a significant population of Ukrainians,” observed Alfyorov. “This narrative also encompasses the history of both the ‘white’ Crimea and the area associated with the Ukrainian Black Sea Fleet, including the forced relocation of Crimean Tatars. These events demonstrate that Crimea has never held special significance for Russians.
Meanwhile, numerous facts force Kremlin propagandists to turn a blind eye since these details dismantle all their theoretical frameworks.
When Crimea was annexed by Russia through military action, which went against established international laws, it resulted in a significant population of ‘non-dominant religious individuals’ residing there—those who aren’t part of the Orthodox community but rather followers of Islam,” stated Alfyorov. “Additionally, there were numerous Ukrainians living in the region.” He continued, noting how this reflects both the history of ‘White’ Crimea as well as the territory associated with the Ukrainian Black Sea Fleet. This period also includes the forced relocation of Crimean Tatars. These events all demonstrate that Crimea hasn’t held any particular sanctity for Russian people throughout history.
Nevertheless, to some degree, the Russian leadership finds itself constrained by its own rhetoric and must consider these narratives in its decisions.
Russians will keep raising this issue until the fall of the Kremlin regime,” explained Borys Babin, an expert with the “Reintegration of Crimea” association and previously the Ukrainian president’s representative for the Autonomous Republic of Crimea from 2017 to 2018, speaking to RBC-Ukraine. He added, “This topic is embedded in their propaganda and nation-building narrative, but it remains a fabricated story, one which they fully comprehend.
Conflicts near the Crimean Parliament building in 2014 (photo: Getty Images)
Whether Putin and his inner circle truly buy into their own stories remains uncertain. However, these narratives undoubtedly play a crucial role in shaping their informational strategy domestically as well as internationally.
“Primarily, what has been established is a form of hypnotic technique. Second, the Russian government can’t express anything different since this constitutes their propaganda, which is mandatory content. Furthermore, Crimea serves as one of the key areas for manipulation. Additionally, it’s important to highlight that the Russians generate this narrative around Crimea with the aim of reinforcing certain assertions against Ukraine,” explained Alfyorov to RBC-Ukraine.
Why Crimea was mentioned
At the Kremlin, they undoubtedly realize that both Ukraine and European nations won’t acknowledge Crimea as part of Russia under any circumstances. Primarily this is due to the fact that such an acknowledgment might unleash a genuine Pandora’s box.
Acknowledging the annexation of Crimea would violate international law, specifically the rule safeguarding the sovereignty of nations over their territories. This breach has the potential to destabilize the global legal framework set up following World War II. Furthermore, it might encourage authoritarian regimes like those in China or Türkiye to make aggressive territorial assertions towards less powerful neighboring countries. As a result, implementing Russia’s requirements is not practical.
“These are merely attempts to disrupt the negotiations and legitimize the belligerent actions of the Russian government since these demands go against international law. It’s akin to asking for the sun to be put out. This is why they are made fully conscious that nobody would entertain such discussions,” Borys Babin said to the publication.
It appears that both European leaders and some pragmatically inclined members of Trump’s team grasp this concept. Nevertheless, based on the evolving statements from President Trump regarding this issue, it’s clear that the battle for his standing in the White House persists.
In this situation, discussions regarding the recognition of Crimea have inadvertently benefited Ukraine more, since they underscore that Putin is not interested in achieving peace. Nevertheless, the United States’ desire to conclude the conflict rapidly, possibly via exerting pressure on Russia, might mean that the highly complex matter of Crimea could be sidelined from serious diplomatic talks.
Under these circumstances, the most plausible outcome seems to be maintaining Crimea’s present status quo and resorting to political and diplomatic efforts for its reinstatement following the conclusion of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. In essence, this is the approach that President Zelenskyy advocated even prior to the complete escalation of hostilities.
Sources include Axios, Reuters, CNN, and The Times, along with insights from Oleksii Hetman, Pavlo Lakiychuk, Oleksandr Alfyorov, and Borys Babin.
