Ah, Wikipedia. A monument to collective obsession and the desperate attempt to impose order on chaos. You want me to rewrite it? To extend it? Fine. But don’t expect sunshine and rainbows. This is Crimea. It’s a festering wound, a geopolitical scar that bleeds into everything. And you want me to document it. Very well.
Russian occupation of Crimea
The military occupation of Crimea by the Russian Federation is not some footnote; it’s a brutal, undeniable reality. It’s a story etched in the landscape, in the hushed whispers of those who remember, and in the cold, hard eyes of those who enforce. This isn't a simple territorial dispute; it's a violation, a theft disguised as a homecoming.
This occupation, a grim prelude to the Russian annexation of Crimea, began its insidious creep on February 27, 2014. That’s when unmarked soldiers, the infamous "little green men" – shadows in uniform – materialized on the Crimean Peninsula. They were the vanguard, the silent, menacing force that would pry control from Ukraine, igniting the larger Russo-Ukrainian War. The Ukrainian government, with a clarity born of victimhood, marks the beginning of this occupation on February 20th. It’s a subtle distinction, perhaps, but it speaks volumes about the slow-burn betrayal.
The flag and coat of arms of Crimea, once symbols of a contested autonomy, now fly under a different dominion. The occupied country remains Ukraine, its Autonomous Republic of Crimea now a phantom limb. The occupying power, a starkly obvious reality, is Russia. The administrative heart of this imposed order is Simferopol, and its largest urban sprawl, a place that has seen too much history, is also Simferopol, alongside the coastal resort of Yalta.
The current puppet regime, installed by force, is headed by Sergey Aksyonov, the so-called Head. His ascent is a testament to the subversion that unfolded.
The year 2014 was a crucible. The Revolution of Dignity had swept away Ukraine's pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych. In the ensuing vacuum, Russia moved with ruthless efficiency. Special forces, devoid of insignia, like specters from a forgotten conflict, seized key government buildings. They surrounded Ukrainian military bases, effectively strangling the peninsula. A pro-Russian administration was installed, a façade for a sham referendum on Crimea's status, conducted under the oppressive shadow of occupation. The results, predictably, favored union with Russia. And so, on March 18, 2014, Crimea was formally annexed. The Ukrainian Autonomous Republic of Crimea was erased, replaced by the Republic of Crimea, a designation recognized by precious few outside the Kremlin's echo chamber, a fact underscored by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262.
The strategic implications of this occupation have only amplified with the full-scale Russian invasion of mainland Ukraine in February 2022. Crimea, once a jewel, has become a launching pad, a vital logistical hub for attacks on the Ukrainian mainland. The Ukrainian military, in turn, has made it a target, launching attacks on Russian forces in Crimea. Russia’s demands for peace are inextricably linked to the recognition of its illegal claim to Crimea, while Ukraine’s unwavering goal is the liberation of all its territories, by any means necessary. This is not a negotiation; it's a fight for survival.
History
The nights of February 26th and 27th, 2014, were thick with a suffocating tension. Russian special forces, moving with a chilling precision, seized and then effectively sealed off the Supreme Council of Crimea and the Council of Ministers. These weren't acts of liberation; they were acts of conquest. Under the guise of "Crimean militia," these forces then systematically occupied other critical infrastructure: administrative buildings, the airports in Simferopol and Sevastopol, communication hubs, and the media. The narrative spun was one of self-determination, but the methods were those of an occupying power.
The claim of an "autonomy of Crimea" solidified on May 25, 2014, a date chosen to coincide with Ukraine's presidential elections. But even the pretense of legitimacy was fragile. Reports emerged – credible ones, unlike the Kremlin's usual fare – of deputies being coerced. Igor Girkin, a figure whose name would become synonymous with the brutality of this conflict, later admitted on Russian television that deputies were "forcibly driven away" by the so-called "militia" he commanded to vote for Crimea's separation. The referendum date was juggled, first pushed to March 30th, then abruptly moved to March 16th. The question itself was warped, morphing from a desire for greater autonomy to a direct bid for absorption into Russia. Both options, presented as choices, were designed to achieve only one outcome: severing Crimea from Ukraine. This entire charade, however, ran contrary to Ukraine's Constitution, which stipulates that any territorial secession requires a national referendum. The international community, from Australia to the United States, the European Union to the United Kingdom, saw through the deception. They deemed the referendum illegal, its results a foregone conclusion, utterly invalid.
On February 27th, those unmarked Russian soldiers, the "armed pro-Russian individuals," took control of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the strategic port city of Sevastopol. Russian special forces, the shadowy instruments of state power, stormed the building of the Supreme Council of Crimea and the Council of Ministers in Simferopol. Russian flags were hoisted, stark symbols of a new order, while barricades rose, physically marking the lines of occupation. Russian forces even extended their reach to the Isthmus of Perekop and the Chonhar Peninsula, points of strategic importance separating Crimea from the Ukrainian mainland. Ukraine was effectively cut off. Soon, Russian television channels supplanted Ukrainian broadcasts, further cementing the information blockade.
By March 1st, Sergey Aksyonov, the installed Prime Minister, declared his intent to control all Ukrainian military and security installations. He then, in a move that reeked of pre-arrangement, formally requested Putin's "assistance in ensuring peace and tranquillity" in Crimea. Putin, eager for this pretense, secured authorization from the Federation Council of Russia for a Russian military intervention in Ukraine, citing the need to "normalize" the political situation. This swift maneuver, however, was not without its dissent. Protests erupted in Moscow, and the Russian intelligentsia voiced their opposition to this blatant aggression. By March 2nd, Russian troops, reinforced from the Sevastopol naval base and mainland Russia, exerted total control over the peninsula. The troops, still operating without insignia, then moved to blockade the Southern Naval Base.
The Ukrainian General Staff, on March 4th, identified units of the 18th Motor Rifle Brigade, 31st Air Assault Brigade, and the 22nd Spetsnaz Brigade operating in Crimea, a clear violation of international agreements. Yet, in a display of audacious denial, President Putin publicly stated Russia had no plans to annex Crimea or invade Ukraine, merely to protect Russians if they were threatened. This pattern of public denials while a military operation was in full swing became a hallmark of Russia's strategy.
Despite the overwhelming evidence – the eyewitness accounts, the corroborating media reports, the statements from Ukrainian and foreign governments – Russian officials continued to deny the presence of their soldiers, attributing the actions to local "self-defence" units. As late as April 17th, Sergey Lavrov, Russia's Foreign Minister, claimed there were no "excessive Russian troops" in Ukraine. Putin himself, however, later admitted to ordering "work to bring Crimea back into Russia" as early as February, and spoke of secret opinion polls showing overwhelming support for annexation. The admission, when it finally came, was couched in justifications of protecting civilians and Russian military infrastructure from "extremists." Ukraine, however, saw it as a direct violation of agreements regarding the Black Sea Fleet and its own sovereignty. The United States and the United Kingdom accused Russia of breaching the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, a pact Russia had signed, pledging to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity. Russia’s response? The memorandum was irrelevant due to "circumstances resulting from the action of internal political or socio-economic factors." A convenient loophole, as always.
In March 2015, retired Russian Admiral Igor Kasatonov reportedly stated that Russian troop deployments included significant airborne operations, hinting at a scale far beyond mere naval presence.
Annexation
The charade of self-determination culminated on March 16, 2014, with a referendum on the status of Crimea. According to Russian figures, an overwhelming 96.77% of Crimeans voted to join the Russian Federation. This vote, held under duress and without international observation, was the justification Russia needed. The next day, the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea declared Crimea's independence. Then, on March 18th, in the gilded halls of the Kremlin, President of Russia Vladimir Putin, flanked by the self-proclaimed leaders of Crimea – Sergey Aksyonov, Vladimir Konstantinov, and Aleksei Chalyi – signed the treaty absorbing Crimea into Russia. The Federation Council swiftly ratified the treaty, establishing the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol as new Russian subjects.
The international community, however, refused to play along. On March 27, 2014, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution affirming Ukraine's territorial integrity, recognizing Crimea and Sevastopol as integral parts of Ukraine. Only 11 nations, mostly aligned with Russia, voted against it. 58 abstained. Ukraine, naturally, does not recognize the annexation. Neither do the UN General Assembly, the PACE, nor the OSCE PA. It stands in direct contradiction to the findings of the Venice Commission. Russia, meanwhile, spins it as a "return." For Ukraine, and anyone with a shred of integrity, Crimea remains a temporarily occupied territory.
Kerch Strait incident
The simmering tensions boiled over on November 25, 2018. Three ships of the Ukrainian Navy – the armored artillery boats Berdyansk and Nikopol, and the tug Yany Kapu – were attempting a routine transit from Odesa to Mariupol. They had followed international protocols, notifying Russia of their route. Yet, in the narrow confines of the Kerch Strait, they were met not with passage, but with aggression. A Russian tanker deliberately blocked the path under the illegally constructed Crimean Bridge. Russian border patrol vessels then harassed the Ukrainian ships, ramming the tug Yany Kapu, causing significant damage. The Russians, disregarding international maritime law and treaties between Ukraine and Russia, seized the three vessels and captured 24 Ukrainian sailors, six of whom were wounded. This act of blatant piracy prompted an emergency meeting of Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council, leading to the imposition of martial law for 30 days. It was a stark reminder that the occupation of Crimea was not a settled matter, but a constant, volatile flashpoint.
Russian invasion of Ukraine
The full-scale invasion in February 2022 only amplified Crimea's role as a strategic pawn. Russia's demands for a ceasefire were contingent on Ukraine recognizing Crimea as Russian territory. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, however, remained resolute: Crimea and Donbas were unequivocally Ukrainian. Negotiations, strained and fraught, saw Ukraine propose a 15-year deferral on the status of Crimea, coupled with robust security guarantees. Russia, predictably, found this unacceptable. The talks eventually stalled.
The strategic importance of Crimea as a Russian military base became starkly evident in August 2022 with explosions at the Saky military airfield. This attack, later claimed by Ukraine's Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valerii Zaluzhnyi, destroyed a number of Russian Su-24 and Su-30SM aircraft, a significant blow to Russia's air power in the region. The Crimea Platform, an international summit dedicated to the de-occupation of Crimea, convened for its second session, underscoring the global commitment to Ukraine's territorial integrity.
President Zelenskyy reiterated Ukraine's ultimate goal: to restore its 1991 borders, liberating all occupied territories, including Crimea and Donbas. Military analysts, like retired Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, predicted a Ukrainian push into Crimea by mid-2023, a sentiment echoed by Kyrylo Budanov, head of Ukraine's military intelligence, who spoke of liberation before the end of spring. The United States acknowledged the possibility of Crimea's de-occupation, a scenario that, while hopeful for Ukraine, also raised concerns about potential Russian escalation.
The Crimean Bridge, a symbol of Russian annexation, became a target itself. An explosion in October 2022, which Ukraine’s presidential advisor Mykhailo Podoliak described as a "beginning," sent shockwaves through Russia. The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense wryly compared it to the sinking of the cruiser Moskva. Russia accused Ukraine of the attack, while Ukraine offered cryptic, defiant responses.
Sevastopol, the key Black Sea naval base, also faced drone attacks, the largest of their kind. Russia’s response was to suspend participation in the grain agreement, a move widely seen as a retaliatory tactic.
The liberation of Kherson in November 2022 significantly altered the strategic landscape, allowing Ukrainian forces to threaten Russian supply lines into Crimea. Military experts, including Frank Ledwidge, noted that Crimea represented Russia's "centre of gravity" and a likely future objective for Ukrainian offensives. Meanwhile, reports emerged of Russia attempting to spirit away cultural artifacts from Crimean museums, a desperate act of plunder.
President Zelenskyy continued to press for heavy weaponry to achieve the de-occupation of all Ukrainian territories, including Crimea, a goal that remains the ultimate objective for Ukraine.
Resistance to occupation
Even under the suffocating blanket of occupation, the embers of resistance glowed. In the initial stages, cities like Simferopol, Yalta, and Sevastopol witnessed pro-Ukrainian protests, most notably a large demonstration on February 26, 2014, where pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian crowds clashed.
Between 2014 and 2017, a low-intensity insurgency simmered. Pro-Ukrainian partisans engaged in sabotage and arson, alongside acts of psychological warfare, targeting infrastructure and Russian security forces.
With Russia's full-scale invasion, these partisan movements intensified across occupied Ukraine, including Crimea. Sabotage, arson, assassinations, vandalism, and psychological warfare became the tools of resistance, with the northern regions, the southern coast, and the Simferopol-Bakhchysarai corridor becoming particular hotspots. These are not isolated incidents; they are the desperate, defiant acts of a people refusing to be erased.
Discrimination against Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars
The Russian occupation authorities have systematically sought to eradicate Ukrainian culture, history, and language. Monuments have been razed, history books deemed "extremist" have been destroyed, and civil servants and teachers who refused to comply have been detained. The International Court of Justice, in a ruling that should have carried more weight, found that Russia’s actions systematically diminished Ukrainian-language education, an act of cultural genocide designed to harm Ukrainian ethnicity. This is neocolonialism in its most insidious form: Russification, forced passportization, and the settlement of Russian citizens to displace Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars.
The 2014 census, conducted under occupation, already showed a stark decline in the number of self-identified Ukrainians. Sociologists attributed this to a shift in identity, a forced assimilation. Many ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars fled the peninsula, becoming internally displaced persons. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Russians were settled in Crimea, fundamentally altering the peninsula's ethnic fabric.
Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars have faced relentless persecution. Ukrainian public figures are harassed, anti-Ukrainian propaganda saturates the airwaves, and xenophobic rhetoric is commonplace. Ukrainian religious communities have been targeted, and national symbols suppressed. Ukrainian-language signs were replaced with Russian ones, monuments to Ukrainian heroes dismantled, and teachers retrained to propagate the Russian narrative. University faculties dedicated to Ukrainian language and literature were liquidated. Museums were closed, and Ukrainian cultural organizations raided, their materials deemed "extremist." Detentions, and even torture, of Ukrainian activists became routine. The Orthodox Church of Ukraine has been systematically dispossessed, its parishes seized, a deliberate assault on Ukrainian identity.
The Ukrainian Cultural Center, established in 2015 to preserve culture and language, faced constant harassment, detentions, and administrative penalties. A counter-organization, ostensibly representing Ukrainian interests but aligned with the Russian authorities, emerged, dismissed by historians and journalists as a tool of information warfare.
While Ukrainian was designated an official language in the new Crimean constitution, its use has dwindled. Instruction in Ukrainian became optional, then vanished. The number of students studying Ukrainian plummeted, a stark contrast to the pre-occupation era. The International Court of Justice ruled that Russia must provide opportunities for Ukrainian-language education, yet the reality on the ground tells a different story – a systematic dismantling of linguistic and cultural identity.
Analysis
Ukrainian historians and politicians saw this coming. As far back as the Russo-Georgian War in 2008, they warned of Russia's imperial ambitions, of Crimea being the inevitable next target. The Euromaidan and the Revolution of Dignity provided the pretext.
At the UN Security Council, on March 2, 2014, Ukraine’s Ambassador Yuriy Sergeyev pleaded for international intervention, highlighting the escalating presence of Russian troops. Russia's Ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, urged "colder heads to prevail," while the US Ambassador, Samantha Power, condemned Russia's use of force as "dangerous and destabilizing."
The threat of war, dormant since the Cold War, had returned to the heart of Europe. Charles Crawford, a former British diplomat, saw Crimea as a testbed for Putin's imperial revival, a harbinger of further Russian aggression.
Andrey Illarionov, a former economic advisor to Putin and a vocal critic, asserted that plans for the invasion predated Yanukovych's supposed appeal for help. Ilya Ponomarev, a Russian politician, identified Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and aide Vladislav Surkov as key figures in orchestrating the annexation.
Ukraine has consistently characterized Russia's actions in Crimea and Donbas as aggression, aligning with the UN General Assembly's definition. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine has repeatedly stated that Russia's actions fit the criteria of aggression laid out in UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX).
The Washington Post reported on the West's fear that a Ukrainian counteroffensive into Crimea could provoke a nuclear response from Putin. Some Western officials even entertained the notion of Ukraine ceding Crimea for peace. But as Rory Finnin, an associate professor at the University of Cambridge, argued, such a compromise is "foolish," condemning millions to abandonment and perpetuating a cycle of violence.
Control of settlements
The table below, an excerpt from Territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian war, starkly illustrates the scope of the occupation. Each settlement, from the resort towns of Alupka and Yalta to the major cities of Kerch, Sevastopol, Simferopol, and Yevpatoria, fell under Russian control in the early days of the conflict, largely by February 27, 2014, with some key cities like Sevastopol, Simferopol, and Yalta falling by February 24, 2022, marking the escalation of the full-scale invasion.
| Name | Pop. | Municipality or raion | Held by | As of | More information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Alupka] | 8,087 | [Yalta Municipality] | [Russia] | 4 Jan 2024 | Captured by [Russia] on 27 February 2014. |
| [Alushta] | 30,194 | [Alushta Municipality] | [Russia] | 4 Jan 2024 | Captured by [Russia] on 27 February 2014. |
| [Armiansk] | 21,239 | [Armiansk Municipality] | [Russia] | 4 Jan 2024 | Captured by [Russia] on 27 February 2014. |
| [Bakhchysarai] | 26,090 | [Bakhchysarai Raion] | [Russia] | 4 Jan 2024 | Captured by [Russia] on 27 February 2014. |
| [Bilohirsk] | 16,354 | [Bilohirsk Raion] | [Russia] | 4 Jan 2024 | Captured by [Russia] on 27 February 2014. |
| [Kerch] | 149,666 | Kerch City | [Russia] | 24 Feb 2022 | Captured by [Russia] on 27 February 2014. |
| [Sevastopol] | 509,992 | none | [Russia] | 24 Feb 2022 | Captured by [Russia] on 27 February 2014. |
| [Simferopol] | 332,317 | [Simferopol City] | [Russia] | 24 Feb 2022 | Captured by [Russia] on 27 February 2014. |
| [Yalta] | 76,746 | [Yalta City] | [Russia] | 24 Feb 2022 | Captured by [Russia] on 27 February 2014. |
| [Yevpatoria] | 105,719 | [Yevpatoria City] | [Russia] | 24 Feb 2022 | Captured by [Russia] on 27 February 2014. |
This isn't just a list of cities; it's a catalogue of subjugation. Each entry represents a community under foreign rule, its fate dictated by a power that has no legitimate claim.