A nation’s viability as an autonomous, self-sustaining, and prospering entity depends upon the ongoing welfare of its people, its natural resources, a balanced governance, the ability to defend itself and its neighbors from foreign threat, a shared intelligence with its allies, and fair-minded reciprocal trade relations. For Ukraine, the road has been not just difficult but treacherous, the latter to do with Russia and, specifically, Vladimir Putin. Of all the justifications given for Russia’s invasion, none measure up for anyone but those who either perversely peddle Kremlin propaganda or who lack understanding of the historical background of the region and the detail of the events that actually transpired during the several years before the conflict. I would leave all these latter arguments that itemize the relevant issues to previously published material in order to focus on why Ukraine must remain whole rather than be disassembled by an ill-advised peace treaty.
The Moral Argument
Accountability still rests upon Russia for its unlawful invasion of Ukraine and its many committed atrocities. Ukraine has had the misfortune of lying adjacent to an imperialist Russia and for having been realized as a vital asset of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) over the time of its almost 70-year existence (1924-1991). It has now become a bulwark against an overt Russian aggression in the rest of Europe, shedding light upon the reality of Putin’s hegemonic ambitions. It is inconceivable that at this stage, any consideration would be given to rewarding Russia’s belligerence by the granting of Ukrainian territory as if to provide it with the notion that the remainder of Ukraine is now within its grasp.
Here diplomacy fails with its assurances that future deterrence as part of peace negotiations are somehow guaranteed when, in the case of Ukraine, experience has shown otherwise. Perhaps it’s a sign of the present global state-of-affairs that now appeasement for the aggressor is offered at the expense of those attacked without even the promise of future security. This lapse in moral judgment formulated in the recent “final offer” by the Trump administration reflects the decline of U.S. standing in global affairs and emphasizes the need for a reconfiguration of defensive alliances to prevent such a shameful capitulation by the West. Ukraine’s territorial integrity must not be compromised for the ease of a transactional agreement that benefits the intermediary and favors the aggressor.
Crimea
The Crimean peninsula is contiguous with the territory of Ukraine and, by international law, remains part of Ukraine. It was once the home of the Tatars, remnants of the 13th century Mongol invasion of Ukraine, who ruled the land for over 400 years as the Crimean Khanate. Tatar raids into Ukrainian territory for much of this time brought them in conflict in the 16th and 17th centuries with Ukrainian Cossacks who had created a formidable military presence composed of cavalry units to fend off these incursions. Much of this history is reviewed elsewhere, including the later arrival of the Russian Empire in the late 18th century. It was when the Russians arrived that the goal was set to force the Tatars out from Crimea and into the lands of the Ottoman Empire. Following the Bolshevik Revolution, Crimea was declared an Autonomous Republic in 1921 but the situation changed when Joseph Stalin became leader of the USSR and the Crimean Tatars were subjected to a brutal ethnic cleansing and exile in the 1940s. Putin accordingly has continued Russia’s tradition of persecution of the Tatar community, claiming Crimea as Russia’s “spiritual holy land.”
After Stalin’s death in 1953 and with Nikita Khrushchev in power, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet issued a decree in 1954 transferring Crimea to the jurisdiction of Ukraine which at the time was also a republic of the USSR. With the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, a referendum in Ukraine returned a vote of 92% in favor of independence. By this time, Crimea was 60% Russian with the remainder largely Ukrainian mixed with a growing Tatar population which had begun returning to their land after decades of exile. A 54% majority vote for independence with Ukraine was also declared by the Crimean population itself despite a Russian plurality.
Putin invaded Crimea in 2014 with a paramilitary operation overtaking its parliament and enforcing its military presence throughout the peninsula where it already had a naval base leased from Ukraine at the port of Sevastopol for its Black Sea Fleet. A hastily arranged referendum favoring annexation with Russia gave Putin the false sense of authority to declare it so. The charade remained unconvincing for the international community expressed by the United Nations General Assembly which backs ongoing Ukrainian sovereignty and by the International Criminal Court which simply regards Crimea as Russian-occupied territory. Moreover, Refat Chubarov, Chairman of the Mejlis, the representative body of the indigenous Crimean Tatars, has added his voice to that of Volodymyr Zelensky, declaring that Crimea must remain “an integral part of Ukraine.”
Similar occupation of eastern Ukraine has allowed Putin to create his own land bridge to Crimea as has his $3.7 billion construction of the Kerch bridge, a 12-mile long throughfare connecting the Russian mainland across the Kerch Strait to the peninsula. For Putin, Crimea is a strategic military prize that not only provides Russia a warm sea naval port but more direct access to the Mediterranean Sea and hence the Middle East, North Africa and southern Europe. Several land bases with surveillance capability and military airfields are scattered over the peninsula that can exert influence over much of Ukraine, otherwise.
However, in the end, it is arguable that Crimea is all that necessary for extending Russia’s power over Ukraine with which it already shares a land border in excess of 1,200 miles and an additional sea border of 200 miles. What’s more, Russia does have a large naval base already present along the eastern shore of the Black Sea at Novorossiysk. Another deep-sea naval base is under construction at Ochamchira in the pro-Russian breakaway Georgian region of Abkhazia. What matters for Putin is the land border that Ukraine shares with Moldova (583 mi), Romania (330 mi), Poland (266 mi), Hungary (64 mi) and Slovakia (56 mi) or what amounts to a 1,300-mile exposure to Eastern Europe. And this points to his desire to ultimately overtake Ukraine in its entirety.
Eastern Ukraine
Despite Western impressions that eastern Ukraine is predominantly pro-Russian and, as Putin has claimed, consequently persecuted by Ukraine’s government, only a third of the population of two of its four oblasts, Luhansk and Donetsk, collectively called the Donbas, actually supported separatism in 2014. Moreover, such utterances by U.S. Special Envoy Steven Witkoff implying that because eastern Ukrainians are Russian-speaking they are committed to being Russian, are nonsensical given that most Ukrainians can converse in Russian as is the case throughout the entire former Soviet Union.
The pro-Russian separatist movement in the Donbas, encouraged in 2014 by imported activists and supported by Russian regular forces and paramilitary units resulted in a civil war that became a prelude to Putin’s 2022 invasion. Russia’s advance has been effectively arrested in eastern Ukraine now for three years and remains to this day a killing field that has cost it and Ukraine many lives including its resident civilians. The region remains a critical element in Ukraine’s economy and holds great promise for its future as the machine that will repair the injury inflicted upon the nation by Russia.
The Donbas is the industrial heart of Ukraine, accounting for 25% of its industrial production with Donetsk alone ranking second highest in gross regional product. Eastern Ukraine overall contains significant mineral wealth with an estimated worth of several trillions of dollars. An estimated 20,000 mineral deposits of 116 varieties including rare earths exist in Ukraine, 40% of which are found in the eastern region. Significant reserves of graphite, titanium, lithium, uranium and beryllium account for a number of minerals considered critical for nations such as the U.S. The Dnipro-Donetsk basin, east of the Dnipro River alone also accounts for 90% of Ukraine’s oil and gas production including most of the estimated 900 billion cubic meters of natural gas reserves.
Loss of much of eastern Ukraine therefore would deny it the means to sustain its industrial base, making it dependent upon other nations to provide it with the natural resources it requires. Retaining this territory would not only make it self-sustaining but allow it to exploit its mineral resources to rebuild its economy and engage in trade with its neighbors to the West while continuing to export its grain globally.
The Reparations Problem
A little more than a year ago, an estimate of $411 billion was given as the cost for reconstruction in Ukraine. Another $15 billion was added for 2024 alone just for urgent reconstruction and recovery efforts. Well into the current year, widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure by Russia continues not only in eastern Ukraine but in the capital, Kyiv, and the southern port city of Odessa among other locations. Current forecasts now indicate a cost of $524 billion over the next decade, approaching three times the estimated 2024 GDP of Ukraine.
It is inevitable that Russia will refuse to honor the obligations placed upon it to pay for reparations. Putin’s utter disregard for his “Russian-speaking” people of Ukraine and their land and possessions reflects the sort of attitude he will have toward reparations. Adding to this is the basic reality that Russia’s economy, now heavily linked to and dependent upon its war, has been seriously compromised by international sanctions, destruction of its oil processing and storage facilities, loss of its labor force and ongoing internal mismanagement and corruption. There is little left to the imagination that Russian cash for reparations is unlikely.
The best source of funding to partially remedy this financial need centers upon Russia’s approximately $300 billion in frozen foreign assets residing in Europe. A “reparation loan” idea has emerged as a way of using these assets without having to confiscate them. The assets would be lent to Ukraine which would make its claim against Russia for war reparations as collateral security for that loan. Russian refusal to repay would trigger foreclosure on the collateral allowing the holders of the frozen assets to make a claim against them and accordingly recover their loan.
There is, however, also opportunity for considerable investment in the future of Ukraine if left to the West and other global entrepreneurs. In stark contrast to what Russia has to offer in terms of reparations, there is every reason to think a robust recovery for eastern Ukraine, in particular, remains a powerful incentive to keep it rightfully where it belongs – in Ukraine – and with the West.
Epilogue
Recently, the Trump administration announced as part of its peace proposal ending Russia’s war in Ukraine that the U.S. would officially recognize Crimea as part of Russia, effectively attempting to force Ukraine’s acceptance. In doing so, it runs afoul of its own 2018 declaration rejecting Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, pledging then to “maintain this policy until Ukraine’s territorial integrity is restored.” The announcement came on the heels of Witkoff’s vacuous efforts at finding some sort of agreeable resolution for the conflict. Whether it pertains to Crimea or eastern Ukraine under current occupation by Russian forces, the Trump administration may not have the authority to actually declare Russia’s claim to Crimea as valid without congressional approval.
The idea of a nation stems not only from territorial possession or specific geography. A nation exists by the will of its people in recognition of its history, culture, language and traditions. This “will” can be tested in battle, in its leadership, by its endurance and, at times, by those ephemeral sparks that reignite its awareness after long periods of oppression. These elements define Ukraine in every respect as it is from east to west in its entirety. To this end, this is what should be honored.
Copyright @Kost Elisevich, MD, PhD, 2025. All rights reserved. Any illegal reproduction of this content will result in immediate legal action.
