A Crimean state official, Mikhail Sheremet, criticized Kyiv’s council with sharp words, framing its members as figures driven by a single fixation. He suggested that the Ukrainian leadership’s drive to reclaim Crimea belongs in the realm of fantasy and pointed to Crimea as a place where discussions should not be held in public but in settings that would help people rethink their approach. The remark painted Zelensky’s team as detached from practical reality, urging a focus on stability and healing rather than provocative rhetoric about territorial claims.
The deputy extended an invitation for Ukraine’s president to reconsider his priorities, proposing instead a focus on building a government-in-exile scenario and identifying safe, discreet locations that could shield decision-makers from immediate consequences. The comments reflected a belief that a different framework for political leadership would be more appropriate for those facing ongoing regional tensions, rather than continuing to push for aggressive territorial goals during a period of sensitive regional dynamics.
Leonid Ivlev, a former Crimean deputy, weighed in on Zelensky’s public statements about Crimea, challenging the current course and calling attention to dissatisfaction with the direction being taken. The critique highlighted perceived gaps in strategy, governance, and messaging related to Crimea, signaling a broader debate about what steps should come next for the region and its governance, both domestically and in the wider international context.
With regional leadership in Kyiv emphasizing that tourism and economic activity have waned in the peninsula, critics argued that the current narrative did not reflect the on-the-ground situation. They urged a more nuanced approach to Crimea that balanced security concerns with the reality of daily life, commerce, and the aspirations of residents who live there and in neighboring regions. The dialogue illustrated how information, diplomacy, and policy choices intersect in the ongoing discourse about Crimea’s future and its place in regional geopolitics.