The notion of going from being identified as a Ukrainian to being a Russian and then going back to being a Ukrainian again is headache-inducing for a Simferopol-based analytics professional, Olga Borodina. 

“We are neither Russian nor Ukrainian,” she tells The New York Sun. “Changing back now would be madness.”

From Ms. Borodina’s purview, the ideal scenario would be to wait a decade or so for emotions to simmer between the countries and revisit the issue via referendum. She is hardly the only Ukrainian exhausted by the years-long conflict and the political football. So, what do the Crimeans want? 

The Beginning 

The February 2014 takeover of the coveted peninsula started with unidentified Russian soldiers, termed “little green men,” mysteriously popping up near military installations and government buildings as confused Ukrainian forces took refuge in their bases. 

Although President Putin initially denied direct involvement in the seizure of Crimea, the operation would mark the beginning of Russia’s war on Ukraine, which evolved into a full-scale invasion eight years later. 

That crucial finger of land, which holds major strategic value for both countries as a gateway to the Black Sea and global trade routes, is back in the limelight as a key determinant in ending the stalemated conflict.

Crimea has become a central issue in President Trump’s proposed peace plan, which includes United States recognition of the peninsula as part of Russia — a stance President Zelensky firmly rejects. While Mr. Trump claims Crimea was “lost years ago” and is no longer up for discussion, Mr. Zelensky considers it an inseparable part of Ukraine. 

“A peace deal recognizing Crimea as part of Russia would not be a pragmatic step forward. Instead, it would set a dangerous precedent,” a Russia-focused research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Ivana Stradner, tells the Sun. 

“It would allow authoritarian regimes to bully their neighbors and seize their territories without repercussions. China is watching, too. Allowing Putin to dictate Europe’s security would embolden Beijing with its territorial ambitions regarding Taiwan.”

Many Crimeans, though, see things a little differently. 

Inside Opinions

Ms. Borodina belongs to a Crimean contingency that declares itself “pro-sanctions.” Proponents believe that the punitive economic measures implemented by the West force local communities to work together to make things that they cannot import, which inspires innovation and boosts job growth. 

“If we can’t get French cheese, we source locally and make our own,” a 20-something student, Tatyana, tells the Sun. 

An IT professional, Denis Matrosov, previously echoed such a sentiment. 

“Before 2014, we relied on outsourcing IT contracts, and now we have to be more creative,” Mr. Matrosov explained. “The sanctions help us to think differently.”

Complex History and Population 

Crimea, historically contested and culturally complex, has long held symbolic value for both Russia and Ukraine.

Once part of the Ottoman Empire, Russia captured it in 1783 and later transferred it to Ukraine in 1954 under Soviet rule. Despite a majority identifying as ethnic Russians in the 2001 census, many Crimeans saw themselves not as pro-Russian nationalists but as distinctly Crimean or Ukrainian citizens. 

Following Ukraine’s independence in 1991, Crimea remained part of the country until Moscow’s annexation in 2014 amid political turmoil in Kyiv. Ukraine’s 2001 census showed that more than half of Crimea’s population identified as ethnic Russian, with 24 percent Ukrainian and 12 percent Tatar. 

The Crimean Tatars, the peninsula’s indigenous, Turkish-speaking population, once formed the majority in Crimea until a Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin, forcibly deported them in 1944 under false accusations of Nazi collaboration. This act led to mass deaths and decades of exile. 

Only in the late 1980s, as the Soviet Union collapsed, were they allowed to return, and by then they made up about 12–15 percent of the population. Yet, identity in Crimea at this point was nuanced — many saw themselves simply as Crimean or ethnically Russian as opposed to pro-Russian, pointing to the corruption of both Ukrainian and Russian political parties.  

A month after the arrival of unmarked Russian troops, Moscow hastily conducted an internationally condemned referendum, claiming more than 95 percent support for joining Russia — though pro-Ukrainian residents largely boycotted the vote. 

Despite its illegitimacy under international law, subsequent surveys showed strong local backing: A 2014 Gallup poll found 82.8 percent believed the results reflected public will and a 2019 Levada-Center survey showed 82 percent still supported Russian annexation. Mr. Putin has since reinforced control with major infrastructure projects, including the Kerch Strait bridge and land corridors secured during the 2022 invasion.

Since Russia’s 2014 annexation, many Crimean Tatars — some of whom have joined Ukrainian fighting forces in opposition to Moscow’s occupation — have again been forced into exile or subjected to serious human rights abuses, including intimidation, disappearances, and violence.

The peninsula has also experienced notable demographic changes since 2014. More than 100,000 Ukrainians have left, and upward of 800,000 Russians are said to have relocated there since the accession. 

“Everyone speaks Russian. It’s essentially Russian in culture,” one Tatar who now lives in the United States tells the Sun. “This current war is a tragedy. It never should have happened. But, like Trump said, ‘Why didn’t you fight for it in 2014?’ Too late now. It’s not even the issue anymore.”

Crimea’s Isolation 

Following the 2014 referendum and Russia’s annexation of Crimea, Kyiv implemented a range of policies to isolate the peninsula, designating it as “temporarily occupied territory.” This included classifying Crimeans as “non-residents,” which limited their ability to open bank accounts, conduct business, or obtain identification documents in Ukraine. 

While aimed at asserting sovereignty and deterring legitimization of the occupation, these measures left many pro-Ukrainian Crimeans feeling abandoned and caught in a legal and bureaucratic limbo. 

For many locals, though, the hostility has only deepened their alignment with Mr. Putin and the Kremlin, leaving them with little alternative but to adapt to life under Russian rule.

“I was determined for two years that I did not want a Russian passport,” an artist and early anti-Russian activist named Svetlana tells the Sun. “But when I went to Kyiv to get documents, I was treated badly, worse than a traitor. Meanwhile, Russia — a country I had never even visited — was doing everything to make us comfortable.”

Vlada, a native of the Russian-occupied Ukrainian oblast of Luhansk, which has also been under Russian pro-separatist control since 2014, worries that the same sentiment is being repeated. “We are often treated like traitors, even though we had nothing to do with this,” she said. 

Many of the promises of better lives and improved infrastructure for Crimeans, though, have not panned out. Another Crimean, an attorney who did not want his name used for fear of repercussions, explained that they have few prospects for growth, and even though most people “don’t want to go through the pain” of returning to Kyiv’s umbrella, it would be “far better to live with free speech.”

Erosion of Freedoms

Many inside and outside Crimea point out that those living on the peninsula don’t have the luxury of speaking out to express how they feel about their leadership or the Moscow-led war in general. 

One Crimean in exile, who lived there for seven years under Russian occupation and now resides in Latin America, underscored that family and friends who are still there “can’t say what they think without fear.”

“The moment you speak out or get involved in any way, you’re marked — it’s only a matter of time,” the source said. “There are constant arrests, raids, torture, and repression for anyone against the regime.”

Another spoke of a concerted effort to “eradicate all things Ukrainian and Tatar as a national identity.”

According to the United Nations, Moscow has seized at least 730 properties from Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar citizens, redistributing them to Russian soldiers and veterans linked to the so-called special military operatio” in Ukraine. Authorities have also made life in Crimea nearly impossible without holding a Russian passport.

In its 2024 Freedom in the World report, Freedom House rated Crimea as “Not Free,” assigning it a score of 2 out of 100 — the lowest since Russia’s 2014 occupation. This designation reflects severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties, including the suppression of independent media, the use of antiterrorism laws against dissenters, and the repression of Crimean Tatars and other groups opposing Russian control.

Since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, the peninsula has experienced a significant decline in tourism and a marked increase in militarization. Once a popular destination attracting millions of visitors annually, Crimea has seen its tourism industry suffer due to international sanctions, travel restrictions, and ongoing conflict. 

In 2023, tourist numbers fell to 5.2 million, a 20 percent decrease from the previous year and nearly half of the 9.5 million visitors reported in 2021. The region’s transformation into a strategic military hub has further deterred tourism. 

Russia has significantly bolstered its military presence in Crimea, doubling the number of stationed troops to approximately 32,000 since 2014, and enhancing its arsenal with advanced air defense systems and missile capabilities. This shift has effectively turned Crimea into a fortified military outpost, diminishing its appeal as a tourist destination and altering its economic landscape.

Crimea’s Murky Future

While Mr. Trump’s peace plan with Russia and Ukraine proposes Washington’s recognition of Crimea as Russian, the European Union is firm in its stance that “Crimea is Ukraine.”

Recent polling inside Ukraine shows many Ukrainians accept that land must be ceded to end the war, though many fear this would make it impossible to reclaim Crimea in the future. Mr. Trump’s plan to end the bloodshed could thus be a major obstacle for Kyiv.  

A former advisor to President Zelensky, Igor Novikov, tells the Sun that he doesn’t “see how it’s possible to reclaim it militarily at this point, especially given that we won’t be receiving enough military aid to even attempt that.”

“It’s something that should have been addressed much earlier in the war. As it stands, Russia will likely continue controlling it de facto. But in terms of formal recognition, Ukraine will never accept Russia’s claim — it’s unconstitutional and illegal,” he explained. “Any Ukrainian politician who suggests otherwise would essentially be signing themselves up for jail. So, things will probably remain as they are.”

Mr. Novikov also underscored that it would not be wise for Washington to “recognize Russian control,” either. 

“It wouldn’t really change anything on the ground, but it would give a sense of legal legitimacy to what Putin has done,” he added. “My view is that Ukraine will absolutely maintain its position, and as far as the U.S. is concerned — maybe like Singapore — I wouldn’t formally recognize it either. I’d acknowledge the de facto reality rather than legitimize it de jure.”