Russia’s іmperial ambitions: How control of Crimea shapes the future of Eastern Europe

Russia’s imperial ambitions have placed Ukraine at the heart of its geopolitical war strategy. By targeting Ukraine’s access to sea routes and isolating it economically, Moscow aims to cripple the nation’s sovereignty.

Wilfried Jilge, a historian of Ukraine and Eastern Europe, senior adviser on Ukraine and the Black Sea region at the Integrated Response Hub for Ukraine at the Stabilization Platform, elaborated on the preconditions for peace and the place of Crimea in peace talks.

ZMINA recorded his speech during the panel discussion “Crimea and the Peace Formula. Humanitarian aspect” within the Fourth Summit of the International Crimea Platform on September 11, 2024.

I would like to first elaborate on the character of the war. This is an imperial war by Russia, with Ukraine as its most important target. Ukraine stands at the crossroads of Russia’s bilateral war aims and its imperial design.

Strategic importance of Crimea and the Azov region

Russia’s main aim in this imperial design is to cut off Ukraine from its seas and trade routes, making it a dysfunctional state. Ukraine is currently very dependent on sea trade.

It’s crucial to understand that not only Crimea holds strategic importance, but also the Azov region. In the Azov area, there are indications that Russia has not abandoned its ambitions in the northern Black Sea region. We observe the development of railway logistics, training fields for urban combat, and occasional landing operation drills. We can’t be certain, but Russia may be preparing for another offensive operation next year.

Wilfried Jilge

Perhaps Russia is trying to pay the attention to the Donbass at now. In the shadow of that, we should be clear that Ukraine will heavily be in need of qualitative packages of weapons supply, and especially the permission for better capabilities to undermine these aims of Russia.

Why is that important? It is essential to understand that the peace talks will have four dimensions. The first dimension is a historical dimension, because for Ukrainians that war is also something which stands in the continuity of its history in the 20th century. Mediators must recognise that for Russia’s deep state, Ukraine is not a partner Russians can deal with as a full-fledged sovereign state. That is very important to have in mind.

The second point is the European security dimension, with the most crucial aspect being the return of Ukrainian borders after the war. Ukraine has an exclusive essential function in both European and Ukrainian security.

Please imagine that if we will have any ceasefire and Crimea will remain under Russian control, then please make your lessons learned from the past 20 years since the first crisis in the Azov Sea. What I mean is even if the conflict with heavy weapons will stop, Russia will of course try to continue a hybrid war if we would not see substantial changes in domestic Russia, but I do not see that.

Looking at the Azov region and Crimea as a logistic hub for Russia, we should be aware that Russia could repeat its aggression, as it’s preparing a new bridgehead less dependent on the Kerch Bridge.

Ukrainian Autonomous Republic of Crimea, temporarily occupied by Russia. Photo: Oleg Artemyev

It means that Crimea is not an adventure of Mr. Zelenskyy, it is not some illusionist thinking of some poor Ukrainian experts. It’s the logic of the war. With Crimea, you control the whole Black Sea. Based on the analysis of Russian aims that we should give a priority to Crimea because with Crimea you control the entire Black Sea and the Azov region.

What does that mean? Controlling this region, Russia has a great possibility to sanction convention and trade, including weapon trade. 

Without Crimea and a better position of Ukraine in the south, I think we will have no sustainable peace.

Path to sustainable peace

We want to have a just and sustainable peace. Even if you look only on the principles of the peace summit track in Switzerland […], you have not all principles of the Crimean formula, however you have the food security and freedom of navigation, which imply trade security. That was a problem of the Black Sea initiative. […] Russia wanted to use the Black Sea initiative in order to diminish the sovereign rights of Ukraine in the waters.

We should understand that Russia is working with everything where the Western partners have no consensus. We learned this from the Minsk and Normandy processes. Russia is not working towards a sustainable order but it is every time working so far as it still can on undermining partners and using such talks as a deep state for further destabilisation of its rival in order to make preparations for the future.

The peace formula clearly aims to prevent war escalation and repetition. Just peace also includes protecting minority rights of indigenous people like the Crimean Tatars, which is one of the hearts of the European Union. We saw that the secularisation of human rights and minority rights in Crimea also was a tool to undermine and to already play a hybrid war against the European order.

I don’t have big expectations for peace talks this winter. But what’s positive is that we’re now in an intense preparation phase. We should explain and find arguments for Western, our like-minded partners in the world and G7 partners to have a consensus on these priorities, which is exclusively right for Crimea.