Why Ukraine must bet it all on Putin’s greatest weakness – Crimea

Swallow's Nest near Yalta in Crimea, currently illegally occupied by Russia. Photo: Elena Shchipkova / Shutterstock

The peninsula that Putin claimed as his greatest political achievement now represents his most dangerous strategic liability, creating an existential threat to regime stability that extends far beyond military considerations. Ukraine must recognize this moment and press its advantage.

Military collapse in Crimea

The transformation of Crimea from a Russian stronghold to strategic liability represents one of the most dramatic military reversals in modern warfare. Ukraine has destroyed or damaged 33 per cent of the Black Sea Fleet, forcing the historic withdrawal of all major naval assets from Sevastopol by July 2024. The fleet that once dominated the Black Sea as Russia’s “lake” has been ruined and moved to less capable ports, severely limiting operational capacity.

This collapse extends beyond the country’s naval forces. Ukrainian strikes using ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles have created critical gaps in Russian air defence coverage across the peninsula. The destruction of multiple S-400 and S-300 systems at Dzhankoi, Belbek and other installations has forced Russia to concentrate remaining assets around the Kerch Bridge, leaving other areas exposed. British intelligence confirms this has fundamentally degraded Russia’s ability to defend Crimean airspace.

The crown jewel of Russian vulnerability remains the Kerch Bridge itself. The underwater attack on the Kerch Bridge in June, the third successful strike since 2022, demonstrates Russia’s inability to protect its sole direct supply route to Crimea. Despite massive defensive investments, Ukraine’s 1,100 kilogram TNT equivalent operation targeting underwater support pillars forced traffic suspensions and highlighted the bridge’s fundamental vulnerability.

From asset to liability

The strategic mathematics have inverted completely. An estimated 150,000 to 160,000 Russian troops remain stationed on the peninsula primarily for defensive purposes, representing a massive diversion of forces from active combat zones. What was intended as a base for southern operations has become a resource-draining defensive commitment that contributes little to Russian offensive capabilities.

This reversal reflects a broader pattern of Ukrainian innovation overwhelming Russian conventional advantages. Kyiv’s naval drone warfare has revolutionized Black Sea combat, achieving what military analysts describe as the first successful campaign to neutralize a major naval fleet through asymmetric drone warfare.

Putin’s throne is built on Crimean sand

Putin’s political transformation began with Crimea’s annexation. Putin’s approval rating surged from 63 per cent to between 86 and 88 following the annexation, creating what analysts call the “Crimean consensus”, a rare moment of national unity that went beyond traditional political divisions. Atlantic Council research identifies the seizure of Crimea as arguably the most important single element in modern Russia’s national narrative and the greatest achievement of Putin’s entire reign.

The psychological impact ran deeper than mere popularity. Polling data shows 80 per cent of Russians agreed the annexation made them feel like a superpower again for the first time since the Soviet collapse. The operation became symbolic proof that Russia could challenge the western-led international order and succeed, validating Putin’s broader narrative about western decline and Russian resurgence.

Vulnerability of myth

This dependence on Crimean success creates political vulnerability. Putin personally took credit for the “brilliant” bloodless operation, making Crimean success existentially linked to his leadership. Carnegie Endowment analysis reveals Putin established a new social contract post-Crimea: in return for absolute political support, the state provided meagre social services propped up by the restored feeling of belonging to a great power.

Because Crimea represents the foundation of Putin’s imperial narrative and proof of his image as a strategic mastermind, Ukrainian successes there generate disproportionate damage to regime legitimacy.

Systematic, not symbolic

Ukraine’s 2024-25 campaign represents methodical strategic degradation rather than isolated symbolic strikes. ATACMS missiles with a range of 300 kilometres have enabled strikes on previously secure targets, including the devastating May 2024 attack on the Belbek airbase that destroyed two MiG-31 fighter jets and damaged fuel infrastructure. Storm Shadow missiles have struck high-value targets including naval communications centres and radar installations, systematically dismantling Russian command and control capabilities.

The campaign’s effectiveness lies in targeting interconnected infrastructure to create cascading failures. Ukrainian forces have targeted over a dozen major military installations, achieving what RUSI analysts describe as “strategic successes that could shape the ultimate outcome of the war”. This approach forces Russia into increasingly costly and reactive defensive postures while demonstrating that Ukrainian capabilities continue to grow.

Psychological warfare and morale attrition

Each successful strike delivers a psychological impact that extends far beyond physical damage. The International Crisis Group expert Oleg Ignatov noted recent Ukrainian attacks delivered “the worst setback for Putin for 2025 in terms of military damage and the impact on public morale”. Each successful strike undermines the narrative of Russian invincibility that underpins Putin’s political authority.

The naval warfare revolution exemplifies this dynamic. Ukraine’s use of naval drones has not only sunk Russian vessels but fundamentally challenged assumptions about naval power projection. This represents more than tactical innovation. Indeed, it demonstrates that technological creativity can overcome conventional military advantages, inspiring broader confidence in Ukrainian capabilities.

Massive investment, minimal return

The economic mathematics of the Crimean occupation reveal a massive strategic miscalculation. Crimea represents a massive economic liability for Russia, requiring over 20 billion US dollars in investments over the past decade while producing less than one per cent of Russian GDP. This cost-benefit imbalance has worsened as Ukrainian attacks increase defensive requirements.

Russia spends an estimated seven billion US dollars or more annually on Crimean subsidies, infrastructure, and military defence, far exceeding the peninsula’s economic contribution. The region receives 65 to 70 per cent of its budget from Russian federal transfers, making it the most subsidized Russian territory. When combined with military infrastructure investments, including the 3.7 billion US dollar Kerch Bridge and extensive air defence systems, the total represents a substantial opportunity cost during Russia’s economic contraction.

Illusory energy assets and fragile tourism

Even Crimea’s supposed energy wealth proves largely illusory. While Russia appropriated Ukrainian offshore gas and oil reserves worth 800 million to 1.2 billion US dollars in proven reserves, with potential undiscovered reserves valued at seven billion, these resources remain largely undeveloped due to sanctions and security concerns. The strategic energy value primarily lies in denying Ukraine energy independence rather than generating meaningful Russian revenue.

The tourism sector, despite showing growth, remains fundamentally vulnerable. Despite a 25 per cent increase in 2024, with tourism demand reaching 3.3 million visitors, the industry remains fragile and dependent on bridge access (62.1 per cent of tourists). Each Ukrainian attack on transportation infrastructure directly impacts civilian economic activity. This creates a vicious cycle where military necessity undermines economic viability.

Why now: the strategic window for decisive action

Current conditions present an unprecedented opportunity for decisive Ukrainian action. The Atlantic Council’s Serhii Kuzan assesses that “with the Black Sea Fleet in retreat, logistical connections disrupted, and air defenses depleted, the Kremlin’s grip on Crimea already appears to be significantly weaker than it was when the full-scale invasion began.” The favourable circumstances that enabled Russia’s 2014 operation no longer apply to current defensive requirements.

Ukrainian capabilities continue to expand while Russian defences degrade. The integration of western weapons systems with Ukrainian innovation has created a tactical advantage that compounds over time. Each successful strike not only destroys specific targets but forces Russia to spread remaining defensive assets ever thinner across an increasingly vulnerable peninsula.

Putin’s shrinking options

Putin faces increasingly difficult choices as Ukrainian pressure intensifies. Significantly, Putin has consistently chosen retreat over escalation when losing control, including withdrawing the Black Sea Fleet rather than risking nuclear confrontation despite Crimea’s symbolic importance. This suggests regime survival instincts may ultimately override territorial commitments.

Sustained Ukrainian success in Crimea could force Putin into increasingly difficult choices between costly military escalation to defend the peninsula and a politically damaging strategic retreat. Historical patterns suggest regime survival instincts may ultimately prevail over territorial commitments. Timeline assessments vary, but experts generally agree that continued Ukrainian pressure combined with economic constraints and military setbacks could create conditions for significant regime instability within two to five years if current trends continue.

Crimea is the domino that topples the regime

Crimea has evolved from Putin’s greatest political achievement into his most dangerous strategic vulnerability. Ukrainian operations have systematically transformed the peninsula from Russia’s naval stronghold into an increasingly indefensible liability that drains resources while providing diminished military value. The symbolic importance that initially strengthened Putin’s regime is now creating existential political risk, as each Ukrainian success undermines the foundational narrative of Russian resurgence.

The convergence of military degradation, economic burden, and political vulnerability suggests that sustained Ukrainian pressure on Crimea represents a uniquely threatening challenge to Putin’s rule. Unlike other territorial disputes, Crimean control has become so central to regime legitimacy that its loss could precipitate broader political instability.

The final battle for Ukrainian freedom and Russian reckoning has begun, and its outcome will be decided on the shores of occupied Crimea.

Khusanboy Kotibjonov a political science student at New York University and a researcher at NYU’s Wilf Department of Politics, where he focuses on political strategy and authoritarian resilience. His writing has appeared in The Hill, Geopolitical Monitor, Euromaidan Press, and the Kyiv Independent. He specializes in Russian and Eurasian politics.

New Eastern Europe is a reader supported publication. Please support us and help us reach our goal of $10,000! We are nearly there. Donate by clicking on the button below.

annexation of Crimea, Crimea, Putin's Russia, Russian foreign policy, Russian invasion of Ukraine