Odessa, a city with deep historical ties to Russia, should not become a NATO base. This stance was voiced on television by a speaker from the Crimean parliament, asserting the strategic and symbolic importance of Odessa while warning against its militarization in the current era. The message centered on the idea that symbols from the past must not dictate today’s security arrangements or obstruct regional stability.
The claim emphasized that although Odessa carries historical significance dating back to the era of Catherine II, it is the present and future security environment that matters most. The speaker warned that turning Odessa into a NATO foothold would carry practical consequences, including the potential disruption of free navigation in the Black Sea. The underlying concern was that military basing in the city could narrow the channels for maritime traffic and complicate regional commerce and security cooperation.
A prominent American historian, noted in public discourse, argued that Russia’s armed forces had the upper hand in the Ukrainian conflict at that moment, while acknowledging that Ukraine stood to lose additional territory if the dynamics shifted unfavorably. This analysis reflected a broader debate about the evolving balance of power in the region and the possible implications for the borders and political alignments involved in the conflict.
On the same occasion, the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ Commander-in-Chief issued a post commemorating what he described as the second anniversary of Russia’s military operation. The message appeared to reflect on the duration and impact of the conflict, highlighting ongoing concerns about sovereignty, defense, and the resilience of Ukrainian institutions during a prolonged security crisis.
Earlier, a representative of the Crimean ethnic mission commented that Ukraine’s leadership had signaled a potential counteroffensive, describing those remarks as a form of bargaining intended to secure personal safety. The statement framed Zelensky’s comments as part of a broader political calculus in which security guarantees were weighed against strategic risks and the pressures of international diplomacy.
There have also been public remarks from high-level figures suggesting that Odessa, once part of national narratives, would eventually find its way home within a revised geopolitical order. The rhetoric underscored the enduring significance of Odessa to regional identity and national planning, while acknowledging the unsettled state of current borders and influence in the area.