As Putin's war in Ukraine unfolds, Crimea has transformed into more than just a piece
of land—it's become a prophetic battleground, a symbol of geopolitical struggles.
Everyone's heard of it, but understanding why it's such a pivotal point of contention
is key to grasping the larger picture.
So, why is Crimea such a big deal for Putin, and how did Russia find itself backed into
a corner, struggling to defend this vital area?
To answer these questions, we need to delve into Russia's history of expansion and Putin's
strategic maneuvers.
But first, let's clear up why Crimea has been a significant focus for Russia for centuries.
Expansion has always been at the heart of Russia's ambitions.
This drive for territorial growth has manifested through various means: military conquests,
frontier settlements, diplomatic alliances, and the subjugation of local elites.
With about 35% of its land uninhabitable, Russia's leadership has fostered a culture
that thrives on territorial acquisition, often at a heavy cost.
One of the earliest examples of this expansionist drive was the Conquest of Siberia (1581-1649),
one of history's most rapid imperial expansions.
The Cossacks were crucial in this campaign, helping Russia control major river systems
and securing recognition from China through the Treaty of Nerchinsk.
However, this expansion added more inhospitable land to the empire, often used as a place
of exile for dissidents.
In the West, Russia found more favorable lands for colonization, though this endeavor brought
its own set of challenges, such as conflicts during the Livonian Wars (1558-1583) with
Sweden and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Despite occasional successes, like Tsar Peter I’s push into the Baltic coast, Russia's
territorial gains were often unstable, leading to cycles of acquisition and loss.
The Soviet era marked a new phase in Russia's expansionist policy.
After WWII, the USSR, now a superpower, shifted its strategy.
Direct conquest was replaced by installing pro-Soviet regimes in Eastern Europe, creating
a semblance of independence while maintaining Soviet influence.
This approach, however, proved fragile, as seen in the uprisings in Hungary (1956) and
Czechoslovakia (1968), and the ethnic diversity within the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact states
posed significant challenges.
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was a turning point, resulting in the emergence
of 15 new countries and a significant loss of territory and economic stability.
Key among these new nations were Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia,
Latvia, Moldova, Belarus, and Ukraine.
Witnessing this dramatic change was a middle-aged spy named Vladimir Putin, who saw the transition
of thousands of public businesses to oligarchs and the weakening of Russia's global influence.
Putin’s rise to power as prime minister in 1999 and then as president in 2000 marked
a return to Russia's expansionist ambitions.
He aimed to rebuild Russia’s influence, focusing on consolidating power internally
and controlling various political and security networks.
His tenure saw the annexation of parts of Georgia in 2008 and a clever navigation around
presidential term limits.
Putin’s military strategy has long relied on sheer numbers and large-scale mobilizations.
This approach, while formidable, often led to initial losses and necessitated reactive
tactics.
Innovations in military technology were hindered by internal purges and executions, impacting
the effectiveness of weaponry and military operations.
His deployment of military force in Chechnya following the 1999 bombings was a clear demonstration
of his aggressive tactics and willingness to assert control.
This move boosted his popularity and solidified his leadership style.
And with this newfound power and influence, Putin set his sights on Crimea.
Crimea's history is marked by continuous political shifts and conquests.
After becoming part of the Russian Empire in the 18th century, it emerged as a key military
and strategic location, notably during the Crimean War.
The post-WWII era saw Stalin’s deportation of the Crimean Tatars and subsequent Soviet
policies that reshaped the region's demographics and political landscape.
The transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954 added further complexity to its identity,
which was further compounded post-Soviet Union collapse.
Putin’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 was not just an isolated event; it was part of
a larger pattern reflecting Russia's historical expansionist tendencies and strategic importance
of regions like Crimea.
This move, while not recognized by much of the international community, was a bold assertion
of Russia’s intent to reclaim its perceived historical territories.
It was a clear indication of Putin's current geopolitical strategies, blending traditional
Russian military tactics with modern political maneuvering, aiming to reestablish Russia
as a dominant global power.
However, the sustainability of this approach amidst modern geopolitical challenges remains
a subject of intense debate.
This expansionist mindset was starkly evident as Putin's confrontation with Ukraine began
in 2014, culminating in a full-blown invasion in February 2022.
This move caught global attention, with Russian troops massing along the Ukrainian border
amidst denials of war intentions.
Yet, Putin's motivations were an open secret: he was looking to reclaim historically Russian
land, challenging NATO and questioning Ukraine's legitimacy.
The use of propaganda tactics, such as labeling Ukrainians as Nazis, was indicative of the
impending conflict and Putin's resolve to assert Russia's power.
As the conflict intensified, the global landscape began to shift dramatically, with neutral
countries like Finland and Sweden considering NATO membership in response to the escalating
tension.
Initially thought to be a quick annexation, the situation in Ukraine started drawing parallels
to the aggressive military campaigns of World War II.
The U.S. response was significant, providing over $60 billion in military aid to Ukraine,
while the EU presented a united front against the aggression.
Despite talks of nuclear escalation, these threats were largely seen as strategic posturing
by Putin, aimed at deterring Western involvement.
Meanwhile, the real global crisis became the energy shortage, with Europe seeking alternative
energy sources due to the disruption of Russian gas supplies.
As Russia increasingly isolates itself, Putin's gamble appears less likely to pay off.
His once seemingly unstoppable assault is showing signs of collapse, underscored by
a leaked strategy paper, likely produced by Russian intelligence, outlining plans for
the annexation of Belarus.
This revelation, aligning with the increasing reliance of Belarusian dictator Alyaksandr
Lukashenka on Russian support, triggered a massive backlash against Russia's ambitions.
The tide of war is turning.
Ukraine's reclaiming of Zmiinyi Island in the Black Sea and the striking of the Kerch
Strait bridge have shifted the focus onto Crimea, a symbol of Russian conquest that
now appears to be the stage for Putin's final stand in the region.
The outlook for Russia's once-celebrated spymaster is increasingly grim, raising questions about
how Putin ended up at this crucial historical juncture and the future of his expansionist
ambitions.
Let's go back to the beginning of the Crimea conflict.
Russia had about 12,000 military personnel from the Black Sea Fleet in various locations
across the peninsula, such as Sevastopol, Kacha, Hvardiiske, Simferopol Raion, Sarych,
and others, under a basing and transit agreement.
This agreement, resulting from the 1997 Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the
Black Sea Fleet, allowed Russia to base its fleet in Crimea until 2017, provided it respected
Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
However, this troop limit turned out to be a significant oversight, giving Russia room
to build a considerable force under the pretext of security concerns.
Following a gas dispute, a new deal signed by Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych extended
Russia's stay in Crimea until 2042—a decision we now see as a crucial mistake.
In 2014, following Yanukovych's ousting, Russia intensified its presence in Crimea from Novorossiysk,
capturing key locations and raising their flag.
Russian forces swiftly took control of crucial airports and communication centers, while
cyberattacks crippled Ukrainian government and media websites and infiltrated mobile
phones of Ukrainian officials.
Ukraine was caught off guard and couldn't mount an effective response until late July.
Fast forward to the end of 2022, and the battle for Crimea was at a standstill.
However, Ukraine's stunning recapture of Kherson marked the beginning of a series of devastating
defeats for Russia.
The critical issue for Russia was maintaining supply lines across the river without Kherson's
rail connections, creating a logistical nightmare in such an intense war zone.
In addition to these challenges, Russia faces the 'Four Seas Problem.'
Unlike countries like Japan that can quickly mobilize a large naval force, Russia’s vast
landmass exposes it to potential attacks from four oceans – the Pacific, Arctic, Baltic,
and Black Seas.
In Crimea's case, naval strength in the Black Sea was crucial.
Putin bolstered the Black Sea fleet ahead of the conflict, but that advantage has since
dwindled.
Western support has helped Ukraine block Russian access to Crimean ports, and the Russian fleet
has been significantly diminished due to heavy losses at sea.
Now, Putin seems to be at a dead end, struggling to sustain his war effort – a situation
resembling a Sisyphean task, and a setback the Russian military can ill afford.
This naturally leads us to ask: What makes Crimea such a coveted prize?
And why would a Russian defeat there signal a dire forecast for their future endeavors?
First things first: Crimea's allure isn't rooted in its economic riches.
A glance at its economy reveals modest contributions, far from capable of sustaining a massive military
force – especially one of Russia's scale.
In 2021, Crimea's top exports included items like chicken meat, disodium carbonate, titanium-based
pigments, medium-sized cars, and spirits.
It's more of a small trade hub than a juggernaut, heavily reliant on external military support
for its defense.
But Crimea's true worth has always been its strategic location, a coveted prize for centuries,
if not millennia.
Historically, Crimea's Black Sea ports have offered swift access to vital regions like
the Eastern Mediterranean, the Balkans, and the Middle East.
This strategic advantage has attracted empires since ancient times – Rome, the Ottomans,
Russia, Britain, France, Nazi Germany, and the Byzantine Empire, each vying for control
to serve their ambitions, whether for conquest or defense.
As Ukraine’s counterattacks, fueled by the West, make headway, many of Crimea's maritime
strengths are slipping into Ukrainian hands.
The loss of Russian naval dominance here spells disaster.
Moreover, the destruction of bridges to Kherson and the damaged Kerch Strait bridge strike
a double blow to Russia, severing crucial supply lines and bolstering Ukrainian defenses.
Without control of Crimea's ports, Russia's alternative routes through the war-torn north
are precarious, lying within reach of Ukraine's arsenal of mid-range missiles.
Ironically, the very artillery power Russia relied on is now a key barrier to their progress.
Thus, Crimea's strategic location, coupled with its limited resources, becomes a double-edged
sword for Russia.
With the closure of these vital routes, moving weapons and supplies becomes an insurmountable
challenge.
Deprived of mainland support, Crimea transforms from a strategic asset into a desolate dead
end.
Analysts are puzzled by Putin's insistence on holding onto Crimea, with many suggesting
a strategic withdrawal as the less damaging option.
The situation mirrors the historic sieges of Constantinople, where armies waited outside,
hoping for a miraculous turn of events.
As the loss of Crimea looms, the attention shifts to other critical areas key to Russia's
military operations.
Another key battleground - the Baltic Sea region in the North stands out in the Russo-Ukrainian
war.
This industrial zone's value lies in powering a vast portion of Russia’s population.
It's crucial to note that “European Russia houses 113 million people, the most populous
in Europe, with about 77% living west of the Ural Mountains.
These western cities are not just population centers, but also vital social, political,
economic, industrial, and cultural hubs.”
However, Ukraine's recent actions have exposed a glaring weakness in Russian air defense,
particularly concerning the protection of these densely populated areas.
A stark example came on January 21st this year, when Ukrainian drones penetrated supposedly
impregnable zones over the Gulf of Finland, striking the UST-LUGA Oil Refinery and Loading
Facility.
What should have been a quick containment turned into a three-day firefighting ordeal,
underscoring Russia's unpreparedness.
This incident is significant for several reasons.
First, it shatters the notion that Ukraine's military reach is confined to the south.
Their capability to target these refineries suggests more such attacks could follow.
Second, such strikes put Russia at risk of losing a significant chunk of its energy production,
exacerbating the economic strain.
Third, the crisis revealed a critical shortage of skilled labor for emergency response.
With many young Russians drafted into the war, there's a dearth of tradespeople and
engineers needed for infrastructure repair – a problem exacerbated by decades of educational
cutbacks.
What lies ahead?
All signs point to Crimea being a lost cause for Russia.
The nature of this loss – retreat or defeat – is still uncertain, but its inevitability
seems clear.
This standoff could drag on for another year or more, mirroring the attrition warfare of
WWI's trenches.
There's a slim chance Russia could cling to its position, possibly hoping for a shift
in Western focus to other global issues.
But with robust U.S. backing and a seemingly endless defense budget, this hope seems increasingly
forlorn.
Putin himself hinted at this in a recent TCN interview, suggesting Ukraine would quickly
fall without Western intervention.
Should Crimea revert to Ukrainian control, it would mark a significant strategic shift.
Ukraine might then redirect its efforts towards the Donbas region and continue drone strikes
on key Russian industrial facilities.
This scenario raises a vital question about Russia's resilience in modern warfare.
Despite the grim outlook for Putin, this doesn't spell total defeat for Russia.
Losing Crimea would be a significant blow, but Russia's historical resilience suggests
it's too early to count them out.
Putin's control over Russia's elite networks could allow him to spin this setback politically,
continuing to vilify the West and framing their involvement as the primary obstacle
to a 'unified' Russia.
Regardless of Crimea's fate, the larger conflict shows no signs of abating.
spending, a significant increase from the pre-war levels of 14-16%.
Putin has repeatedly highlighted this fact, drawing the attention of many in the West,
particularly Europe.
As Western nations supporting Ukraine grapple with their own domestic challenges – ranging
from refugee crises to agricultural concerns – political sentiments are evolving.
More voices are calling for resources to be redirected to address internal needs rather
than foreign conflicts.
The chapter on Crimea may be closing, but Ukraine's future is still shrouded in uncertainty.
But what do you think?
Is Russia's military strategy sustainable in the long run, or are we witnessing the
limits of its power?
Could changing political priorities in the West alter the course of this conflict?
Share your thoughts in the comments below, and don't forget to subscribe for more in-depth
military analysis from our team of experts.