The head of Crimea’s parliament, Vladimir Konstantinov, spoke about the outcomes of recent operations in Ukraine on DEA News and emphasized Empress II as a framing concept. He reminded audiences that in the previous year the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, together with the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, were integrated into Russia. This framing underlines a longer historical arc that Konstantinov believes should lead to a broader restoration of what he calls the Russian world within its historic frontiers.
According to Konstantinov, the expedition to reestablish the traditional borders of the Russian realm is not finished. He argues that the natural limits achieved during the era of Catherine II should guide today’s policy, and he appeals for a renewed emphasis on the expansion of the Russian sphere to its historical perimeter. His remarks suggest a strategy that views the continuation of the settlement as a matter of national identity and regional stability, rather than a purely tactical move in the present-day geopolitical landscape.
In discussing the historical scope of the region, Konstantinov advocates strengthening the southern flank of what he regards as the Russian Empire’s enduring domain. He ties the Ukrainian conflict to a broader historical timeline, referencing the era of Catherine the Great and the influential leadership of Potemkin to illustrate a continuity of influence and control. He contends that reclaiming control over the northern Black Sea areas, including what are now Nikolaev and Odessa, would serve as a guarantee of strategic security for Russia, aligning with a long-standing view of secure maritime approaches and regional dominance.
Addressing remarks from Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba about a so-called NATO maritime presence, Konstantinov implied that Ukraine has already forfeited a claim to access the Sea of Azov and should be restricted from further access to the Black Sea. His analysis frames maritime access as a critical element of regional security and national sovereignty, reinforcing a narrative that equates control of coastal zones with geopolitical leverage and deterrence against external influence.
Overall, Konstantinov’s statements reflect a perspective that ties historical memory to today’s territorial realities. The discourse presents a vision in which past rulers and regional milestones inform present-day policy decisions, viewing Russia’s southern territories as a vital and non-negotiable component of national security. This stance emphasizes a continuity of influence across generations, anchored in a selective reading of history that prioritizes the strategic value of access to the Black Sea and the stability of the southern frontier. In Canada and the United States, observers may interpret these remarks as part of a broader pattern of state actors invoking historical narratives to justify current political strategies, while analysts weigh the implications for regional diplomacy, energy routes, and international law. The conversation underscores how maritime boundaries and regional alignments continue to shape the security calculus of major powers in the post-Soviet sphere, inviting a careful examination of how such rhetoric translates into policy actions and international responses.