The National Interest explained to readers the importance of Crimea for Russia. What is Crimea for Russia?

Crimea - large peninsula, jutting deeply into the Azov-Black Sea basin from the north. Its southwestern tip is located at a very short distance from the Black Sea straits, through which the Black Sea is connected to the Mediterranean, and Istanbul - largest city Turkey and the entire region lying at the first of two straits - the Bosporus. The position of Crimea in the center of the Azov-Black Sea region, its proximity to the Bosporus Strait and close proximity to the Kerch Strait, as well as its relative isolation from the mainland, makes the peninsula the most strategically important territory of the entire Black Sea region.

Military-strategic significance of Crimea

Crimea is a place of concentration of geopolitical interests of Russia, Turkey, the USA and European Union. Ukraine has geopolitical interests in Crimea mainly due to its actual ownership of the peninsula. Beyond the problem of owning Crimea, Ukraine’s interest in the peninsula concerns Kerch Strait(as a sea route to the ports of the Azov Sea - Mariupol, Berdyansk and Genichesk) and the northwestern shelf of the Black Sea between the Crimean Tarkhankut and Odessa, as well as common problem Black Sea security.
This interest on the part of many states is due to the fact that there are convenient ports on the territory of Crimea (Sevastopol, Feodosia, Kerch). Also, interest in the peninsula is caused by the fact that it is an “unsinkable aircraft carrier”, the ownership of which provides the right to control the entire Black Sea-Azov region.

Economic importance of Crimea

Crimea's economy at at the moment mainly focused on tourist season. Therefore, the recreational sector is one of the leading sectors of the republic. In addition, there are enough other potentials of the peninsula that can be beneficial to external players.
If you take agriculture, then the north of Crimea has fertile black soils, thanks to which the Autonomous Republic of Crimea exports grains. In addition, Crimea produces famous canned fish, essential oils and a number of other agricultural and food products.
Crimea is rich in oil and gas fields. On the territory of the peninsula there are a number of important chemical industry enterprises (Crimean TITAN CJSC, Crimean Soda Plant OJSC, Brom PJSC, etc.)
Despite all this economic potential, Crimea does not have the economic basis for real independence (since Crimea is dependent on electricity, water from the North Crimean Canal, food from Ukraine, etc.), and therefore any potential Crimean independence must be viewed with military -strategic point of view as the embodiment of Russia’s strategy aimed at strengthening in the Black Sea, or external players (USA, EU or Turkey) aimed at weakening Russia in the region.
As can be seen from the above, Crimea is a tasty morsel for all the players who lay claim to it, especially in terms of its geostrategic location. This is probably why the history of Crimea is full of struggle among many political forces for influence on this region. And if anyone thinks that interest in the peninsula is caused by “brotherly love” or something similar, then he is deeply mistaken. In a world where capitalism rules today, where capital determines everything, human lives are worth nothing. The main thing for this system is profit!

The annexation of Crimea to Russia took place on March 18, 2014 at a joint meeting of both chambers of the Russian Parliament - State Duma and the Federation Council, the Government of Russia, in the presence of the President of Russia and official representatives peoples of Crimea

Before this, Crimea was part of Ukraine for 60 years, first in the Ukrainian SSR, then independent state. On February 22, a coup d’etat took place in Ukraine, which was not recognized by the people of Crimea. On the night of February 27, units were introduced into Crimea Russian special forces, which ensured peace and order on the peninsula and the possibility of free voting in the referendum on March 16, where the question of the fate of Crimea was raised. as a result, according to officially published data, about 96% of those who voted were in favor of annexing Crimea to Russia.

The annexation, or rather the return of Crimea to Russia, is an objective law

Crimea for Russia is the most important symbol of its great power.
. And for a long time they interacted in this capacity on an equal basis, sometimes they quarreled, sometimes they made peace, the first - more often. The Crimeans violated Russian borders, reached Moscow, Russian tsars made campaigns to Perekop. For a long time Crimea was an outpost of Turkey, a representative of its interests in the Northern Black Sea region, which did not suit Russia, which was constantly at war with Turkey. And it is very significant that the conquest of Crimea by Russia took place during the “Golden Age of Catherine” - the time of the transformation of the Russian state into an Empire, its entry into the European arena as a major player

Crimea for Russia is a spiritual homeland.
It was in Crimea, in the Chersonesus region, on the site of present-day Sevastopol Kyiv prince Vladimir was baptized. From Crimea, Orthodoxy began to spread throughout Rus'.

Crimea - the birthplace of Russian Orthodoxy

Crimea is a witness for Russia major milestones her stories
Adoption of Christianity, military confrontation with the Ottoman Empire, Crimean War 1853-1856, revolutionary performances of the Black Sea sailors (cruisers "Ochakov" and "Potemkin"), the last stronghold White movement, the assault on Perekop in Grazhdanskaya, two heroic defenses of Sevastopol.

Crimea for Russia - cultural history
Afanasy Nikitin returned to his homeland from India through Kafa (Feodosia). Pushkin, Griboyedov, L. Tolstoy, Chekhov, Stanyukovich, Aivazovsky, Voloshin, Paustovsky, A. Green - the lives of these great people are in one way or another connected with Crimea.

Crimea for Russia is an unsinkable aircraft carrier
The one who owns Crimea (and, therefore, Russia, which annexed Crimea) controls the entire northern coast of the Black Sea and the waters and shores of the Sea of Azov, commercial maritime and air transport, oil and gas pipelines, extraction of energy resources from the bottom of the sea.
Crimea is rich in convenient bays for basing warships and submarines. Crimea, thanks to its geography, is easy to defend. Crimea is not only the Black Sea Fleet (and the Black Sea Fleet is not only Sevastopol), but also a mass of various hydraulic and navigation equipment, without which sailing in the Black Sea and Seas of Azov. Since the times of the USSR, Crimea has had a huge number of fortifications, including underground ones.

Crimea - base of the Black Sea Fleet

K. Paustovsky - about Crimea

“The old steamer “Pushkin” was heading to Yalta. Crimea rose from the blue sea like a treasure island. Clouds lay on the tops of his lilac mountains. White Sevastopol slowly sailed towards us. He met our old ship with a midday cannon shot and the blue crosses of St. Andrew's flags.... So, in reality, and not just in books, this city exists, where Nakhimov died, where round cannonballs were torn on the bastions, where artilleryman Leo Tolstoy fought, where he swore loyalty to the people, Lieutenant Schmidt. Here it is, this city, in a hot day, in the feathery shade of acacias...

“The hills of Taurida, a lovely land”
A. S. Pushkin

…Chersonese was a fortress of Hellas on the banks of the Crimea. Then the Black Sea
was called Pontus Euxine, which means the Hospitable Sea; and in the ancient Greek loci - peripla - Chersonesus was also called Herronis and Heraclea, Crimea - Cimmeria, and the Sea of Azov - the Meotian swamp... I thought about the antiquity of this region... Everything was mixed in the local rocky soil - the skulls of the Huns, and Roman tombstones, and French cannonballs, and bones of shot sailors from the Potemkin, and rusted Wrangel bayonets... Odysseus passed along these shores. Sad Iphigenia, daughter of Agamemnon, languished here with longing for Hellas - a girl sung in the majestic verses of Euripides...

“Not Crimea, but a copy of ancient paradise!”
V. V. Mayakovsky

...We saw bottomless abysses. They gave us heart palpitations every time. From their terrible depths beech and pine forests... At times the narrow road ran among the colonnades of old beeches... Every minute I wanted... to breathe in the sharp and at the same time gentle air of the thickets and stones.
By midnight, the clouds had slid to the bottom of the gorges, and a low blood moon appeared. With every minute she grew pale before the spectacle of the magnificent and wild night land. Chatyr-Dag occasionally appeared in the light of the moon. At times he was engulfed in some kind of magical darkness. He smoked lightly. The presence of Chatyr-Dag gave the night a stern and romantic tone.”.

The article “A Bear Sets Up a New Den in the Black Sea,” published in The National Interest magazine, is of interest not only to Americans, but also to domestic readers. It provides, although popular, a fairly detailed analysis of the strategic picture in the Black Sea basin that emerged three years after Crimea became Russian. General meaning The material is that after a rather long break, Moscow was able to regain almost complete control of this water area, receiving not just an unsinkable aircraft carrier, but capabilities comparable to those that a large and expensive fleet would provide. And perhaps even larger ones.

The magazine enjoys credibility due to the fact that it publishes articles by famous economic, political, technical and military-strategic experts. The team that makes up the editorial board is headed by Henry Kissinger himself, whose breadth of knowledge and ability to think no one doubts. This article was written by B. Kayaoglu, associate professor of the department of history at the American University of Iraq, and B. Kurtdarcan, a teacher at Istanbul Galatasaray University, who previously wrote a book about wars and weapons of the future. The basis of the editorial policy of “National Interest” is traditionally political neutrality when considering any armed conflict, hypothetical, current or already completed, and its at least bilateral assessment through the eyes of each of the conflicting parties. The opinion of the magazine's specialists is, as a rule, taken seriously by military leaders of countries, economists, and politicians.

NATO Black Sea Policy

The article by respected authors is of even greater interest because it contains hidden criticism of the declared North Atlantic Alliance targets in the Black Sea basin. Briefly, the essence is that NATO allegedly strives to contain Russia, and for this purpose it places weapons systems of clearly offensive purpose near its borders, as well as facilities that provide them with cover from a possible retaliatory strike. In addition to ground-based airfields, they are expanding combat capabilities the fleets of the countries included in the Black Sea region - Bulgaria, Romania, and, of course, Turkey, which has a navy that is superior to the Russian Black Sea Fleet both in tonnage and in the number of strike units. Special attention deserve landing ships and boats intended, by definition, for landing on foreign coasts. In addition, information about the transfer to Ukraine of a certain (yet unknown) number of watercraft decommissioned from combat personnel fleets of NATO countries, but what is called “on the move”. These ships, of course, are outdated, both morally and technically, but the proximity of their probable bases to Crimea partly offsets this drawback. Among them, again, are called landing military vessels.

What is meant by “containment”?

A quick analysis of the current situation leads to the idea that the “policy of containment” adopted and voiced by the NATO leadership consists of demonstratively preparing for offensive military actions in the hope that Russia, fearful of a possible attack, will somehow begin to retreat and give up their positions in the region. There is not enough realism in such logic, but this is not the only problem. For a long period, mainly in the 90s, the Euro-Atlantic military bloc did not feel any resistance. Ships entered the Black Sea different countries NATO, often not even to perform any training tasks, but simply for the sake of displaying the flag. Having indicated their presence, some ships left and were replaced by others.

The situation has changed

Changes taking place in structural organization and the composition of the Black Sea Fleet were not really monitored. It was commonly believed that the Black Sea Fleet was stationed in the Ukrainian Crimea temporarily, and, it should be noted, there were reasons not only to hope, but also to expect that after the end of the lease period, NATO ships would moor at the Sevastopol berths. The Black Sea Fleet was not a formidable combat unit. In 1993, part of the Turkish Navy would have been enough to sink it. Everything changed after the Kyiv Maidan. The peninsula left not only Ukraine, but also Brussels’ possible plans to further “contain” Russia. And it is strategically very important. From Crimea you can control almost the entire Black Sea.

Island-fleet concept

As long as the Black Sea Fleet was based on Ukrainian territory, its secondary importance was recognized in Russia. Changes began when, in the spring of 2014, Minister Shoigu announced that the development of technical means and infrastructure of the entire Russian Fleet, including the Black Sea Fleet as part of it, a lot of money is allocated. The equivalent of $2.41 billion is expected to be spent on the construction of not only warships, but also coastal defense facilities, the capabilities of which are recent years have grown significantly. The Black Sea is relatively small, and if in the time of Ushakov or during the Second World War the enemy had to be met with submarines, destroyers and cruisers, now theoretically it is possible to defend ourselves from land.

For this purpose, there are modern anti-ship systems that allow you to hit any targets at great distances with high accuracy. Ground airfields in Crimea are much more effective than any aircraft carrier, and air defense and missile defense systems are capable of reliably protecting them from air attacks. There is no point in significantly increasing the tonnage of the Black Sea Fleet and the number of its combat units: firstly, it is very expensive, and secondly, geographical location the peninsula is such that no armada can compare with it.

Bubble zones

The authors of the article called “bubbles” certain access zones through which Russia is able to block certain areas of the Black Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean. Turkey also has a long coastline, but the position of the peninsula is advantageous in that it is deeply “pressed” into the water space, which makes it possible to effectively use missile weapons and control, together with the military bases stationed in the Caucasus and Kuban, the entire water area.

The security system, based on the peninsula's facilities, is based on the latest technical means, such as the latest generation radars, mobile missile systems"Bastion" and "Iskander", electronic reconnaissance equipment, aviation and much more. The capabilities of the fleet have not been forgotten, which, although it does not have great striking power, but with such support receives a number of advantages compared to any probable enemy. It should be noted that the authors of the article did not limit the capabilities of the Crimean military group to the Black Sea alone.

Is it possible to attack Crimea?

In the 90s, the situation in the region developed in favor of Turkey, which increased its naval forces and introduced into its composition large number modern ships designed to conduct offensive operations. These include Ada-class corvettes and TF-2000-type frigates, built taking into account low visibility requirements, as well as the aforementioned landing ships and helicopter carriers capable of supporting the takeoff and landing of American V-generation F-35 fighters. Until recently, it was believed that such an expensive armada was capable of solving almost any combat missions related to the landing of the expeditionary force and its support. Now Russia has every opportunity not only to block certain sections of the Black Sea waters, but even, if necessary, to prevent ships from leaving their own bases, as was the case in 1853 at Sinop.

Conclusions

The authors of the article point out the advantages of the concept of integrated use of ships and coastal systems developed in Russia to ensure regional dominance. It has the advantages of an existing maneuverable fleet, but at the same time is devoid of its disadvantages such as vulnerability and high cost.

Now I don’t even want to talk about the situation that would have developed if NATO forces were based in Crimea. However, nothing is written about this in the National Interest article either.

Crimea has always been of strategic importance, and its possession meant control over the Black Sea and neighboring regions. No matter how Russia expanded through territories as a result of the divisions of Poland, it became a great European power only after the annexation of the Black Sea region, including Crimea.

To conduct the first large-scale landing operation in history, the British, French, Turks and Sardinians in 1855-56 chose Crimea, after which this war is named. The Allies did not set out to penetrate deep into Russian territory, and over an area of several tens to several hundred square kilometers the fate of not only Russian Empire, which suffered a severe defeat in Sevastopol, as well as Ottoman Empire, which was saved.

During World War II, the German leadership associated many plans for penetration into Asia and the Middle East with Crimea. What is interesting is that, as in the 19th century, Western powers link Russia's weakening control over Crimea to its containment towards the Mediterranean.

The current situation largely satisfies the United States and NATO. The Black Sea Fleet bases in Crimea are constantly in a very dubious legal and political situation. The Russian Navy is significantly inferior to the Turkish fleet in the Black Sea, but at the same time, based on other advantages of Russia and Turkey, a balance of power is more or less maintained in this region.

Is it in the interests of the United States and NATO for a significant weakening of Russia in the Black Sea and an increase or even dominance of Turkey in this region? The United States and its NATO partners have twice prepared a “leap” in strengthening their presence in the Black Sea, or rather, in the Black Sea region, including the countries of the Balkans and the South Caucasus. However, twice they abandoned these plans, which doomed the states of the South Caucasus to greater dependence on Russia and Turkey.

At the same time, the United States and NATO hoped that the Black Sea Fleet was securely locked in the Black Sea basin and was unlikely to penetrate into the Mediterranean Sea, but at the same time, the Russian Navy would resist Turkish expansion. However, in the situation related to the events in Syria, the Russian fleet, despite being unprepared and not very modern technical equipment, penetrated into the Eastern Mediterranean. This, of course, has become a cause of concern for the United States and NATO, despite the very obvious prospect of limitations in the capabilities of Russia and its fleet.

The United States and NATO, one way or another, envisage reconsidering their intentions regarding the Black Sea-Caucasus-Caspian region, and in this situation the role of Crimea may be updated.

Currently, certain events are taking place in Crimea related to the processes in Kyiv and throughout Ukraine. It is difficult to say how much the population of this region is really concerned about these events, or whether this was initiated by Moscow. Apparently, both things happen, and much more, for example, the position of the Crimean Tatars.

There is no doubt that Crimea, like the whole of Novorossiya, became Ukrainian, primarily as a result of the expansion of the Russian Empire towards the Black Sea. But what does the ethno-demographic situation in Crimea look like now? It is usually said that in Crimea it prevails Russian population. This is true, but, perhaps, nowhere on the peninsula does the Russian population constitute an absolute majority.

Now, with a population of Crimea of 2.1 million people, Russians make up 58.3%, and Ukrainians – 24.3%, Crimean Tatars– 12.1%. At the same time, only 10.1% of the population speak Ukrainian. However, over the decades, the share of the Russian population has been in significant dynamics and there is a constant decline in the share of Russians. Let's take a closer look at the following statistics.

Let us also consider the ethno-demographic situation in the context of Crimean regions. The share of the Russian population is: out of 26 districts and the city of Sevastopol - in 7 districts - more than 65%, in 9 districts - from 50 to 60%, in 10 districts up to 50%. There is not a single district where Ukrainians make up 50%; specific gravity Ukrainians account for up to 20% in 8 districts, up to 30% in 9 districts, and from 30–40% in 8 districts. In Sevastopol, Russians make up 71.6%, Ukrainians – 22.4%.

The Ukrainian population is relatively large only in the areas adjacent to the northern part of Crimea, that is, these are the Dzhaikoysky, Razdolnensky, Pervomaisky, Armenian districts.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%94%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8F_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA %D0%B8%D1%85_%D0%B2_%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%BC%D1%83.png?uselang=ru

What conclusions can be drawn from this situation? Of course, if a legitimate referendum is held, the fate of Crimea will be predetermined in favor of joining Russia. But is a legitimate and internationally recognized referendum possible, and will Ukraine recognize it? If this political process will last several years, the Russians will find themselves in the minority, since the Russian population is actively emigrating from Crimea, and the Tatar population invariably opposes the interests of Russia, and of course this important factor struggle against the annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.

An important factor is the mood of local elites. They feel very comfortable in the Ukrainian format, but how will they feel as part of Russia? Most likely, now Moscow is intimidating Ukraine with the collapse of the country, separatism, but at the same time, Russia will completely lose its influence on Ukraine.

Thus, the separatization of Crimea itself is problematic given many factors, even given the position of Ukrainians as a minority on the peninsula.

The article “A Bear Sets Up a New Den in the Black Sea,” published in The National Interest magazine, is of interest not only to Americans, but also to domestic readers. It provides, although popular, a fairly detailed analysis of the strategic picture in the Black Sea basin that emerged three years after Crimea became Russian. The general meaning of the material is that after a rather long break, Moscow was able to regain almost complete control of this water area, receiving not just an unsinkable aircraft carrier, but capabilities comparable to those that a large and expensive fleet would provide. And perhaps even larger ones.

What happens when a dog licks a person's face? What happens when you do planks every day? 35 wisest Jewish sayings

NATO Black Sea Policy

The article by respected authors is of even greater interest because it contains hidden criticism of the goals declared by the North Atlantic Alliance in the Black Sea basin. Briefly, the essence is that NATO allegedly strives to contain Russia, and for this purpose it places weapons systems of clearly offensive purpose near its borders, as well as facilities that provide them with cover from a possible retaliatory strike. In addition to land-based airfields, the combat capabilities of the fleets of the Black Sea countries are being increased - Bulgaria, Romania, and, of course, Turkey, which has a navy that is superior to the Russian Black Sea Fleet both in tonnage and in the number of strike units. Landing ships and boats, intended by definition for landing on foreign coasts, deserve special attention. In addition, information is being intensively circulated in the press about the transfer to Ukraine of a certain (yet unknown) number of watercraft decommissioned from the combat strength of the fleets of NATO countries, but what is called “on the move.” These ships, of course, are outdated, both morally and technically, but the proximity of their probable bases to Crimea partly offsets this drawback. Among them, again, are called landing military vessels.

Why do cats carry dead animals home? What happens if you give up alcohol and sweets for a month? 11 signs that a guardian angel has visited you

What is meant by “containment”?

A quick analysis of the current situation leads to the idea that the “policy of containment” adopted and voiced by the NATO leadership consists of demonstratively preparing for offensive military actions in the hope that Russia, fearful of a possible attack, will somehow begin to retreat and give up their positions in the region. There is not enough realism in such logic, but this is not the only problem. For a long period, mainly in the 90s, the Euro-Atlantic military bloc did not feel any resistance. Ships from different NATO countries entered the Black Sea, often not even to perform any training tasks, but simply for the sake of displaying the flag. Having indicated their presence, some ships left and were replaced by others.

How “toxic” people are good for you How your date of birth determines your entire later life How can a cat ruin your life?

The situation has changed

The changes that took place in the structural organization and composition of the Black Sea Fleet were not really monitored. It was commonly believed that the Black Sea Fleet was stationed in the Ukrainian Crimea temporarily, and, it should be noted, there were reasons not only to hope, but also to expect that after the end of the lease period, NATO ships would moor at the Sevastopol berths. The Black Sea Fleet was not a formidable combat unit. In 1993, part of the Turkish Navy would have been enough to sink it. Everything changed after the Kyiv Maidan. The peninsula left not only Ukraine, but also Brussels’ possible plans to further “contain” Russia. And it is strategically very important. From Crimea you can control almost the entire Black Sea.

Island-fleet concept

As long as the Black Sea Fleet was based on Ukrainian territory, its secondary importance was recognized in Russia. Changes began when in the spring of 2014, Minister Shoigu announced that a lot of money was being allocated for the development of technical means and infrastructure of the entire Russian Fleet, including the Black Sea Fleet as part of it. The equivalent of $2.41 billion is expected to be spent on the construction of not only warships, but also coastal defense facilities, the capabilities of which have increased significantly in recent years. The Black Sea is relatively small, and if in the time of Ushakov or during the Second World War the enemy had to be met with submarines, destroyers and cruisers, now theoretically it is possible to defend ourselves from land.

6 Scenes Starring Really Drunk Actors The Best Haircuts for Over 50s 35 Scientific “Facts” That Turned Out to Be Untrue

For this purpose, there are modern anti-ship systems that allow you to hit any targets at great distances with high accuracy. Ground airfields in Crimea are much more effective than any aircraft carrier, and air defense and missile defense systems are capable of reliably protecting them from air attacks. There is no point in significantly increasing the tonnage of the Black Sea Fleet and the number of its combat units: firstly, it is very expensive, and secondly, the geographical position of the peninsula is such that no armada can compare with it.

Bubble zones

The security system, based on the peninsula's facilities, is based on the latest technical means, such as the latest generation radars, Bastion and Iskander mobile missile systems, electronic reconnaissance equipment, aviation and much more. The capabilities of the fleet, which although does not have great striking power, but with such support receives a number of advantages over any potential enemy, have not been forgotten. It should be noted that the authors of the article did not limit the capabilities of the Crimean military group to the Black Sea alone.

Is it possible to attack Crimea?

In the 90s, the situation in the region developed in favor of Turkey, which expanded its Navy and introduced a large number of modern ships designed to conduct offensive operations. These include Ada-class corvettes and TF-2000-type frigates, built taking into account low visibility requirements, as well as the aforementioned landing ships and helicopter carriers capable of supporting the takeoff and landing of American V-generation F-35 fighters. Until recently, it was believed that such an expensive armada was capable of solving almost any combat mission related to the landing of an expeditionary force and its support. Now Russia has every opportunity not only to block certain sections of the Black Sea waters, but even, if necessary, to prevent ships from leaving their own bases, as was the case in 1853 at Sinop.

Conclusions

Now I don’t even want to talk about the situation that would have developed if NATO forces were based in Crimea. However, nothing is written about this in the National Interest article either.

Crimea, a strategically important object for Russia?

By the way, about payment for placement of Russian military base: Ukraine did not receive a penny. The virtual payment is a “discount” on purchased gas, as a result of which Ukraine received gas twice as expensive as European countries located much further from the supplier. - 3 years ago

Without any doubt, the Crimean Peninsula is the most important strategic object for Russia! They say the phrase that whoever owns Crimea owns the Black Sea. Imagine how important the naval base in Sevastopol was for Russia, that for it (for the lease of territory and waters) Russia paid Ukraine fabulous money and sold gas at a discounted price! Return of Crimea to the territory Russian Federation For Russia it is a great acquisition. And economic savings. Now our military units are stationed on Russian territory, and there is no need to pay anyone, no need to be dependent on the mood of the Ukrainian rulers. Now we are our own masters!

Crimea is a tourism business that seems to be very profitable for investment. Crimea is fertile lands where you can get rich harvests of the same melons. By the way, in Crimea there is a fairly developed food industry, which processes its own products. Developed and chemical industry. Crimea has already stepped up production of its own gas. So everything is fine with Crimea and Russia! They mutually need each other!

Skiba Lyudmila

Crimea does not represent any economic or strategic significance for Russia, as well as for Ukraine. The question is only on the political plane. The region was “killed” long ago; 80% of it came from the general Ukrainian budget. Apart from the resort business for middle-income vacationers, there has been no industry there for a long time. The vineyards were destroyed by Gorbachov and Ligachov during the fight against alcoholism and are slowly beginning to recover, while agriculture fell into complete decline under Stalin. The peninsula does not have its own water, electricity is not generated, all basic agricultural products (potatoes, milk, butter and vegetable oil, meat), sugar were imported from neighboring regions of Ukraine. The bulk of the population are military pensioners of the SA and Navy with high pensions. The isolation of Crimea from the territory of Russia a priori cannot be an important strategic object. The hype around Crimea under the guise of the “return” of lost lands is an attempt to raise V.V. Putin’s falling rating, which has yielded results.

Alexander29

Of course, strategically important is the deployment of troops in any quantity, access to the sea and control of the Black Sea, this is advancement to the west and the placement of certain strategic means of protection against those moving east American systems PRO. This again is the distribution of military forces between primarily the Russian Federation and America.

Strategic importance of Crimea

amfora: There is a widespread belief that Crimea is of strategic importance for the security of Russia and this was the reason for its return in 2014.
Let's check if this is true.
To assess the strategic importance of Crimea for the security of Russia, it is necessary to find out from what modern threats the peninsula and the military bases located on it can protect the country.
1. Nuclear strike.
Will Crimea be able to somehow protect Russia from nuclear strike?
Hardly.
Early warning systems and missile defense systems can be deployed in other regions no less, and even more effectively. Smolensk and Pskov are located to the west, not to mention Kaliningrad. Maykop is at the same latitude as Sevastopol. Sochi is further south.
In general, there are quite enough options for deploying detection systems and missile defense systems even without Crimea. There are probably some advantages to placing detection systems on the peninsula, but they are unlikely to be so fundamental.
At the same time, let me remind you that Russia has military satellites that can track launches from virtually any point. And if I’m not mistaken, satellites today are the main means of detecting missile launches.
You can look at it from the other side - what if the United States deployed anti-missile missiles or launchers right in Crimea?
However, from the point of view of the deployment of American anti-missile missiles or nuclear weapons Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk are just as dangerous. Moreover, Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk are located closer to Moscow than Crimea. And Sumy is even closer.
It turns out that in order to prevent a nuclear strike or deploy nuclear deterrent forces, Crimea does not have any unique advantages over other regions - neither for Russia nor for the United States.
2. Airspace control.
The same arguments can be made here.
Radar systems and air bases can be located both south and west of Crimea in other regions of Russia.
Crimea is located closer than other regions to Romania and Bulgaria, but is this really important, given the prospect of deploying NATO forces in Ukraine, for example in Kharkov?
Is it really more convenient to intercept and track NATO reconnaissance aircraft and drones, which may be based near Kharkov, from the territory of Crimea than from Belgorod, Voronezh and Kursk?
Control of Turkish airspace?
But Sochi, Maykop, Krasnodar, Novorossiysk are located at approximately the same distance from Turkey as Crimea.
Open the map and see for yourself.
3. Control of the Black Sea.
Sevastopol is the base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet.
But the fleet could be relocated to Novorossiysk, where all the necessary conditions exist for this.
Moreover, the project for the construction of military bases in Novorossiysk actually existed and it seemed that they were even starting to build them, but after the return of Crimea this project lost its meaning.
You can again go from the other side - what if a US naval base appeared in Sevastopol?
But the United States could just as well build a base in Odessa.
As with nuclear deterrence and launch detection forces, both Russia and the United States have alternatives to Crimea. An alternative for Russia is Novorossiysk. An alternative for the USA is Odessa.
Therefore, there is no need to talk about the uniqueness of Crimea even in relation to the location of naval bases.
And how can the American fleet threaten the security of Russia so much from the Black Sea?
Tomahawks?
But excuse me, the US fleet entering the Black Sea itself finds itself under attack, which Russia can inflict from its territory even without using the fleet. Medium and short range, which Russia has, as well as aviation, make it possible to destroy enemy ships anywhere in the Black Sea.
From the history of World War II it is known that even while controlling Crimea, Germany was not the master of the Black Sea. And this at a time when there was no modern missiles and tactical nuclear weapons.
It is also known from history that in case of war it is easier to enter the Black Sea than to leave it.
Therefore, the uniqueness and importance of Crimea from the point of view of Russian security is somewhat exaggerated.
Another question is that the relocation of the Black Sea Fleet from Sevastopol to Novorossiysk is a very costly undertaking. But it is unlikely that it would be more costly than the construction of a bridge to Crimea, other investments in the development of the peninsula, as well as losses caused by sanctions.
If we add up all the costs that Russia incurred after the return of Crimea, they will certainly exceed the cost of relocating the fleet to Novorossiysk.
Separately, it should be noted that Crimea does not have land connections with Russia.
If we are talking about defense potential, then the standing bridge does not play a role, because it itself is a very vulnerable object and can be quickly disabled, after which Crimea will actually become an island.
Crimea and the military bases located on its territory are very vulnerable from a supply point of view.
Therefore, Crimea does not so much ensure Russia’s security as it becomes vulnerable spot, which Russia itself must defend.
Let me also recall the goals of the initial annexation of Crimea to Russia, which was carried out by Suvorov on the orders of Catherine.
The slave trade flourished in Crimea; Russians were sent to Crimea, whom the Turks captured during raids. State funds, quite large, were allocated for the ransom of those taken prisoner. Border provinces suffered from regular raids - it was akin to modern terrorism.
Suvorov was instructed to take Crimea in order to end the "terrorist threat" posed by Crimean Khanate. Which is what was done.
The Crimean Khanate of those times can be compared with Ichkeria in the 90s, which was a source of banditry, terrorism, a place of human trafficking, a place of issuing counterfeit dollars, and so on.
But in 2014, Crimea did not pose the same security threats to Russia that existed during the era of Catherine.
You can say this:
In terms of security, Crimea did not stand out in any way from other regions of southeastern Ukraine - Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, Sumy regions.
Therefore, in order to fundamentally strengthen Russia’s security in the western direction, it was necessary to annex not only Crimea, but Crimea together with eastern Ukraine, that is, create Novorossiya.
Crimea without eastern Ukraine, without Novorossiya is in to a greater extent vulnerability of Russia rather than protection from external threats.
However, Crimea still has strategic importance.
But this significance is not military, but reputational, internal political.
Crimea carries great reputational significance and provides the authorities with the image of defenders of Russia and collectors of Russian lands.
Crimea is the pride of Russia. It is not for nothing that in the past it was called the jewel in the crown of the Russian Empire. And here we must not forget that the modern Russian authorities are restorers pre-revolutionary Russia in modern realities, which means “the pearl in the crown of the Russian Empire” has special meaning for them.
Crimea is an iconic place.
This is its strategic meaning.
That is why the president spoke a lot about Korsun, sacred places, history, but never said anything about the defense potential and the importance of Crimea for the country’s security.
And the military bases were not moved from Crimea, not because there was nowhere or it was too expensive, but because it would have become a shame, a sign of retreat, defeat, and the president, who decided to move military bases from Sevastopol to Novorossiysk under pressure from external forces, would forever would have received a reputation as a defeatist, a loser, unable to defend the interests of the country.
But the Kremlin did not want to become a loser.
The Kremlin does not like to look like a loser; on the contrary, the image of the modern Russian government is built on victories - victory at the Olympics, Soviet victory in Great Patriotic War privatized by modern Russian authorities, liberation of Palmyra...
In recent years, the Kremlin has been engaged in triumphalism, with or without reason. Therefore, it was absolutely impossible to allow a clear and obvious retreat, defeat, surrender of Crimea - an iconic, historical, sacred place.
Crimea is truly of strategic importance.
But this is not military-defensive, but military-historical, reputational, image, sacred significance.
But it’s also strategic.
Sources - http://amfora.livejournal.com/