Follow us on social

Sevastopol-scaled

Why Crimea is the key to the Ukraine war

Many talk about the peninsula's ethnic ties to Russia, but less so about its strategic implications.

Analysis | Europe

The explosions that damaged the Kerch bridge nearly two weeks ago have put the spotlight back on the strategic significance of the Crimean peninsula, which Russia seized from Ukraine in March 2014.

Just before the attack on the bridge, Elon Musk tweeted out a plan for ending the Ukrainian war.

Musk urged Ukraine to recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea and added an interesting detail — that Crimea should be guaranteed water supplies from Ukraine. The water issue is indeed important to Moscow, but it has passed largely unnoticed in the West. (Musk has denied that he talked directly to the Kremlin about his peace plan.)

What is the root cause of the war in Ukraine? Is it really about Vladimir Putin’s desire to “denazify” Ukraine, or the threat to Russia posed by NATO expansion?

Two simple geographical facts deserve more attention in trying to figure out Putin’s goals in this war: the dependence of Crimea on water supplies from the Ukrainian mainland, and the importance of the naval base at Sevastopol.

Crimea was a vital strategic possession of the Russian Empire following its capture from the Ottomans in 1783. Britain and France went to war in 1854 to try to dislodge the Tsars from Crimea. If Putin wants to restore Russia to its status as a leading European power, something that it achieved under the rule of Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, then he needs Crimea.

One reason why Crimea is so important is that it hosts the natural harbor of Sevastopol — the only deep-water port on Russia’s Black Sea littoral. (The ports of Sochi and Novorossiisk are shallow and require ships to moor offshore.) Without Sevastopol, Russia would not have a home for its Black Sea fleet, which it uses to project power into the Mediterranean — and to wage war in Syria.

Crimea is an arid peninsula with insufficient rainfall to meet the needs of its 2 million people. In 1971, the Soviet Union built the 70-mile-long North Crimea Canal to bring water south from Nova Kakhovka on the Dnipr river. The canal, which continues for another 170 miles to the eastern tip of Crimea, met 70-85 percent of the peninsula’s water needs, with most of the water being used for agriculture.

After the Russian annexation in 2014, Ukraine dammed the canal ten miles north of the Crimean border. Since then, Crimea has been drawing water from the aquifer, which is now running dry and becoming polluted. Climate change has brought decreased rainfall and higher temperatures to the region, exacerbating the water deficit.

Two days after the February 24 invasion, Russia blew up the dam, restarting the flow of water to Crimea. In order to guarantee the supply of water in the long term, Putin wants to control the canal all the way to the Dnipr river, which means occupying the province of Kherson (which was part of the annexations this month).

The annexation of Crimea has been costly for Russia since the peninsula’s economic ties with Ukraine have been severed. The Russian government budget released earlier this month projected that Crimea will cost Moscow 350 billion rubles ($6 billion) over the next three years. The Kerch strait bridge, which opened in 2018, cost $4 billion to build.

The status of Crimea is key to understanding Russia’s war on Ukraine. Back in March, when there was still some hope for a ceasefire and a negotiated settlement, the Ukrainian delegation presented a proposal for a new system of security guarantees that would define Ukraine as a neutral, non-aligned, non-nuclear state, with the status of Crimea to be negotiated within the next 15 years. 

With a string of battlefield defeats, and rising public resentment over the mobilization of reservists, such a deal may look increasingly attractive to Putin. That is, if the deal is still on the table: Kyiv is in no mood for capitulating to Russian demands.


Evening Sevastopol panorama, aerial view of the Sevastopol bay, Crimea. (Shutterstock/Vladimir Mulder)
Analysis | Europe
British Royal Navy
Top photo credit: Launch of Duncan on the Clyde in Scotland MOD, Royal Navy, 2010. (Ian Arthur/MOD/Wikimedia)

Secretary's remark that UK 'will fight' China is a dip into crazy town

Asia-Pacific

Having spent the past decade telling the British public that Russia poses the biggest ‘immediate threat’ to the United Kingdom, the idea that Britain should get ready to fight China is idiotic and irresponsible.

During a visit to Australia to join HMS Prince of Wales, which is currently leading Carrier Strike Group 25 to Asia, UK Defense Secretary John Healey implied that the UK might be willing to fight China in the Pacific over Taiwan. “If we have to fight, as we have done in the past, Australia and the UK are nations that will fight together. We exercise together and by exercising together and being more ready to fight, we deter better together.”

keep readingShow less
Gaza starvation children
Top photo credit: Palestinian children suffering from malnutrition receive medical care at Al-Rantisi Children's Hospital, July 24, 2025, Gaza. Photo by Omar Ashtawy apaimages Gaza city Gaza Strip Palestinian Territory 240725_Gaza_OSH_0014 Copyright: xapaimagesxOmarxAshtawyxxapaimagesx

This isn't a 'war' — Israel is destroying a population

Middle East

The prospects for negotiating a ceasefire and an end to the humanitarian disaster in the Gaza Strip appear as dim as ever. Israeli and U.S. representatives walked out of talks with Hamas in Qatar that had been mediated by the Qataris and Egyptians. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is talking about “alternative” means of achieving Israel’s goals in the territory.

President Donald Trump, echoing Netanyahu’s levying of blame on Hamas, asserted that “Hamas didn’t really want to make a deal. I think they want to die.” Trump went on to mention a need to “finish the job,” evidently referring to Israel’s continued devastating assault on the Strip and its residents.

keep readingShow less
Rafael Groosi , Abbas Araghchi , badr Abdelatty
Top photo credit: Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty meets with Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Rafael Grossi in Cairo, Egypt, June 2, 2025. REUTERS/Mohamed Abd El Ghany

Are Iran and Egypt relations on the cusp of a 'seismic shift'?

Middle East

In the heart of old Cairo last month, one of the Middle East’s longest-running rifts was being publicly laid to rest.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, flanked by Egyptian officials, walked through Cairo’s historic Khan el-Khalili bazaar, prayed at the Al-Hussein Mosque, and dined with former Egyptian foreign ministers at the storied Naguib Mahfouz restaurant. Araghchi was unequivocal when he posted during his trip that Egyptian-Iranian relations had “entered a new phase.”

This visit was more than routine diplomacy, but a signal of a potentially seismic shift between two Middle Eastern powers, drawn together by the pull of shared crises.

The rupture began in 1979, when Iran’s revolutionary leaders severed diplomatic relations after Egyptian President Anwar Sadat signed the Camp David Accords with Israel — a betrayal in Tehran’s eyes. The schism deepened when Cairo granted asylum to the deposed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was just overthrown by a popular revolution which birthed a new Islamic Republic under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini. He died and was buried in Egypt in 1980.

During the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988), Egypt’s material support for Saddam Hussein’s regime cemented Tehran’s view of Cairo as an antagonist. For decades thereafter, diplomatic relations remained frozen, with only intermittent and largely fruitless attempts at dialogue.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.