After Brexit, the authorities of certain parts of the United Kingdom seriously considered whether it would be profitable for them to remain under the British “Union Jack” outside the European Union or to try to improve their situation by altering their status. And, if Northern Ireland, for example, could count on joining the Republic of Ireland, and Gibraltar – on Spain (in this case, both territories will return to the EU), the case with Scotland is more complicated, since independent Scotland can rely only on itself, unable to remain an EU member. And so, local politicians, lawyers, and economists are scrupulously calculating all options possible – all “cons” and “pros”. But if Scotland holds a referendum on independence and becomes an independent state, and then it suddenly turns out that ordinary citizens have become worse off (than as part of UK), naturally, all claims will be addressed exclusively to Edinburgh (not London).
In the spring of 2014, the Crimean peninsula, which had been part of Ukraine for the past 60 years (until 1991, as the Ukrainian Soviet Republic), was “annexed” by Russia. According to Moscow, this happened as a result of a referendum, i.e. of the free will of the majority of the local residents. Therefore, in this case, the Crimean government bears full responsibility both for the advisability of handing the peninsula over to Russia’s jurisdiction, and for all ensuing developments. According to Kyiv’s version, supported by Brussels, London, Washington, and the entire civilized world, the case of Crimea was in fact a Russian military invasion, and then a fake referendum “on acceding to Russia” held at gunpoint and aimed at legitimizing the annexation. Having seized Crimea in 2014, Russia destabilized the world order and demonstrated that it still has imperial ambitions, that’s according to a statement by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, voiced at the Munich Security Conference.
Despite the seizure of Crimea by force, for the past six years Moscow has been constantly accusing Kyiv of refusing to provide the peninsula with food, medications, electricity, and fresh water in pre-occupation volumes. For Russia, fresh water supply disruption is the main problem. Despite the fact that, according to international conventions, the occupying state bears full responsibility for the territories seized by force and for the local population, Moscow cynically appeals to the UN and other international organizations, demanding collective pressure on Kyiv toward the resumption of the Dnipro River water supply to Crimea. Otherwise, according to the Kremlin, a humanitarian disaster threatens the peninsula over the lack of fresh water. A paradox, indeed: Russia first seizes part of the territory of a neighboring state, and then accuses its government of failing to provide the occupied territory with vital necessities!
But that’s not the point. In fact, over the past six years (since the annexation and closure of the North Crimea Canal by Ukraine), the Crimea population’s demand for drinking water has been fully met! And there are so far no prerequisites to believe that the situation can radically change. According to expert estimates, freshwater reserves in Crimea are sufficient to cover those needs. The main sources of water supply for the population are natural flow reservoirs (in the Crimean mountains), bulk reservoirs (the largest of them, a 4 km² Mezhgornoye, was built near Simferopol in 1991), artesian water intakes (more than a dozen wells were drilled in each), and underground sources (the source of the Subash River near Feodosia). In addition, in the summer of 2019, “head of Crimea Republic” Sergei Aksyonov personally stated that the peninsula had been coping well without the Dnipro water and is able to further do without it. That is, until recently there were not even hints of a “humanitarian disaster”…
Russian official statistics over the past six years indicate a quite stable state of the agricultural sector on the peninsula. However, it should be noted that the structure of the agricultural sector itself has changed over the past decades due to global climate changes, which has led to a gradual reduction (since 1990) in the area of irrigated land (from 400,000 to 140,000 hectares). As a result, the agricultural sector switched to growing drought-resistant, less water-intensive crops, applying drip irrigation. The cultivation of rice, individual root crops (carrots), and plants (onions) has been completely stopped. At the same time, emphasis was placed on grain (oats, barley), melons (watermelon, melon, pumpkin), oilseeds (lavender, used in healthcare, perfumes, and teas), and grape.
Of course, without Dnipro water, Crimea became even more dependent on natural factors (rainfall, humidity, summer temperatures).
Surely, without the Dnipro River water, Crimea became even more dependent on natural factors (rainfall, humidity, and summer temperatures). Such conditions are suitable for people who can continue developing their recreational business, as well as grow grains and fruit. However, Russia’s real problem in the annexed Crimea is that without a sufficient amount of fresh water they won’t be able to properly develop military infrastructure, plan and conduct military exercises.
Due to geographical features, Crimea is not only a natural oasis with a unique climate, but also a kind of ‘natural and unsinkable aircraft carrier’. And while Ukraine, over two decades of its independence, had been trying to turn the peninsula into a kind of a super-resort, Russia has turned it into a super-aircraft carrier.
Over the six years of occupation, militarization of Crimea has reached an unprecedented scale. The Kremlin not only restored all Soviet-era army units, military bases, training grounds, airfields, shipyards, and repair plants, but also expanded its military infrastructure. Russia’s main goal is to strengthen their military grouping to the level of a strike army and accelerate the Black Sea Fleet modernization. Today, they have more than doubled the number of troops deployed on the peninsula (from 12,000 to over 25,000) and deployed Iskander-M/K operational-tactical missile systems (2,000 km range), S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems, Bastion coastal missile systems (covering Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits), Uragan-1M multiple launch rocket systems (employing a wide range of rockets with a range of up to 200 km), and even tactical nuclear weapons. Through the militarization of Crimea, Russia hopes to regain leadership in the Black Sea region, isolate Ukraine and Georgia, exert constant pressure on Turkey, and expand the areas of possible military action in the Mediterranean and the Middle East.
In turn, strengthening of the Russian grouping in Crimea implies expanded infrastructure and clear mechanisms for providing this bulky military machine with technical and drinking water. In addition, it is obvious that the Kremlin cannot afford to make the effectiveness of the strategic military infrastructure dependent on whether winters are snowy and summers rainy. This makes it clear that this whole hype over the alleged resumption by Ukraine of fresh water supplies from the Dnipro River to Crimea is not a humanitarian, environmental, or economic issue, but a military one. Without Ukrainian water, the Russian military machine in Crimea will be unfeasibly costly, unstable and vulnerable, which is why Moscow is pushing Kyiv to reopen the locks of the North Crimea Canal.
Since year-start, Russia has sharply increased pressure on Ukraine. There has been a coordinated effort to promote “vital” resumption of water supplies to the occupied Crimea on the part of Russian-paid European politicians, pro-Russian parties in Ukrainian politics, “useful idiots” who offer to exchange Dnipro water for Crimean Tatars convicted in Russia, and political businessmen who advocate selling water at global market prices.
Until now, everyone perfectly realized (both Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and his Western partners) that, if Kyiv provides water to the Russian military machine on the peninsula, this will mean voluntarily untying Moscow’s hands to pursue hybrid aggression. Once resolving the issue with Crimea, the Kremlin will use freed forces and opportunities to intensify destabilizing actions in the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine (from Kharkiv to Odesa).
Therefore, it is so important that in the course of the next stage of negotiations in the Normandy format, France and Germany, in their attempt to once again appease the aggressor, exert no pressure on Zelensky, forcing him to make unreasonable concessions, including providing fresh water to the occupied peninsula. There’s hope that Western democracies will continue to adhere to a clear logic – as soon as Russia leaves Crimea, Ukraine will resume water supplies to the peninsula over which is will have regained control.
