For a long time it seemed Crimea would be the final barrier in any peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. The peninsula holds strategic, military, economic, and emotional significance for both sides. Kyiv even hinted at this in a ceasefire proposal presented in Istanbul, which gave Moscow a 15-year window to decide Crimea’s future. But the momentum shifted after battlefield wins by Ukrainian forces. The withdrawal from Kherson, about 130 kilometers from Crimea, left Ukraine momentarily behind, and both sides began weighing the possibility of a later, forcible retake in the coming months.
Ukraine’s president expressed clear confidence that Crimea would be reclaimed. In the weeks around Kyiv’s counteroffensive along the Dnipro River, officials reiterated the commitment to restoring Ukrainian control over the peninsula and incorporating it into a European framework. A deputy defense minister underscored that victory could come sooner rather than later. In response, Ukrainian drones reportedly targeted Russian military sites on the peninsula, with Moscow claiming successful air defenses repelled the strikes.
Residents and authorities in Crimea do not take such threats lightly. Local officials have prepared for a potential Ukrainian push, with fortifications and defensive trenches visible in satellite imagery. There are also reports of the displacement of some residents toward Russia’s Krasnodar region. Analyses from civic groups warn that a Ukrainian liberation would have broad and immediate effects on security and daily life in the area, prompting calls for evacuations and contingency planning by local and international actors alike.
It is vital for the Kremlin
Crimea remains a pivotal site for Moscow, seized in 2014 and later incorporated with a controversial referendum. The region helps project Russian power, serving as a gateway for the invasion of southern Ukraine last year. Moscow has since militarized the area, granted Russian citizenship to residents, and altered demographics through migration and coercive measures. Reports indicate that nearly a million Russians have settled there, reshaping local politics and social dynamics, while Ukrainian activists and journalists face pressure. Some observers compare this to earlier population policies used in the Soviet era to reshape control over contested territories.
Yet Crimea is also a highly defended fortress. Analysts argue that without Ukrainian governance the peninsula would struggle to sustain itself economically. Much of the budget subsidy comes from Moscow, and the region faces water and energy shortages, with prices well above those in other parts of Ukraine due to logistical hurdles. Critics describe these issues as persistent failures of governance and infrastructure that Moscow has not fully resolved in eight years of occupation. The water supply remains a focal concern, historically fed through the North Crimean Canal from the Dnieper basin, a lifeline for drinking water and irrigation.
After the peninsula’s annexation, Kyiv briefly halted the canal’s flow. The situation evolved when disruptions to the hydroelectric dam at Kakhovka altered water distribution. Environmental observers note that water is a persistent vulnerability for Crimea, given underdeveloped resources and limited external input. This makes the peninsula particularly sensitive to supply disruptions that affect agriculture, towns, and daily life.
At the moment, Kyiv controls parts of the Kherson region but has not yet restored full water access, with some routes still under Russian control. Analysts emphasize that while water scarcity has shaped military decisions, it is not the sole determining factor in future battlefield outcomes. Much depends on ongoing operations and how both sides adapt to changing frontline realities.
Helplines
Crimea’s vulnerability is also connected to transportation links to the mainland. The Kerch Strait bridge, a major artery linking Crimea with Russia, represents a costly and strategic asset. Moscow reportedly invested billions to connect the peninsula through this route, which remains a critical corridor for people and goods. Ukraine has shown it can target the bridge when strategic conditions allow, a move that complicates supply lines and communications for the occupying authorities. If Ukrainian forces break through and disrupt cross-peninsula connections again, it could isolate Crimea and further limit Russian support. Such a scenario would be reminiscent of a strategic stalemate, potentially transforming Crimea into a heavily contested theatre of operations akin to past conflicts in the region.