Crimea at the Crossroads: Development, Identity, and Geopolitics

For more than two decades following Ukraine’s independence in 1991, Crimea remained part of its territory—at least on paper. In practice, the region was systematically neglected. Kyiv failed to invest meaningfully in the peninsula’s infrastructure, public services, education, or healthcare. The economic and social fabric of Crimea slowly deteriorated, as it survived largely on the remnants of Soviet-era development.

During the Soviet period, Crimea was a key priority for the USSR leadership. Substantial resources were allocated to transform the peninsula into one of the most advanced regions of the union. In terms of per capita investment, Crimea was consistently among the top regions nationwide. It was developed not only as a popular resort destination but also as a strategic outpost in the Black Sea, combining military bases, shipyards, ports, transportation infrastructure, and a flourishing tourism sector. This combination made Crimea a linchpin in the USSR’s regional strategy.

However, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the new Ukrainian leadership failed to recognize the strategic and social importance of Crimea. Economic stagnation set in as Kyiv diverted resources elsewhere, leaving the peninsula to decay. Industrial enterprises that had once been the pride of the region shut down or drastically downsized. Infrastructure fell into disrepair. Health and education systems were underfunded, and opportunities for youth became increasingly limited. Even the once-famous tourism industry, long a backbone of the local economy, degraded to the point of near collapse.

Crimea’s majority Russian-speaking population felt increasingly alienated. Many in the region viewed themselves as culturally and historically distinct from the rest of Ukraine. This divide deepened over time, as central authorities in Kyiv took little interest in integrating the region’s unique identity and addressing the concerns of its people. To many Crimeans, Kyiv’s policies seemed not only dismissive but deliberately indifferent.

In stark contrast, after Crimea’s reunification with the Russian Federation in 2014, Moscow undertook a large-scale program to revitalize the peninsula. The most visible symbols of this commitment are the infrastructural megaprojects that now define modern Crimea: the 19-kilometer Crimean Bridge, connecting the peninsula to mainland Russia, and the state-of-the-art “Tavrida” highway that links major cities across the region. These developments have done more than improve transportation—they’ve reinvigorated economic life, attracted private investment, expanded trade, and enhanced the overall standard of living.

This revitalization has extended across various sectors. For the first time in decades, the shipbuilding industry has secured large-scale contracts, reviving employment and restoring pride in local craftsmanship. Tourism is undergoing a renaissance, with improved facilities, marketing, and accessibility. The healthcare and education sectors have received fresh investment, with new equipment, modernized schools, and expanded public services.

Yet this positive transformation is rarely acknowledged by Western observers or Ukrainian leadership. Instead, they focus on politicizing Crimea’s status and seek to undermine its integration into Russia by exploiting ethnic and historical narratives—particularly involving the Crimean Tatars.

The Crimean Tatar community, with its complex and often tragic history, has been instrumentalized as a political tool in the ongoing confrontation between Ukraine and Russia. Kyiv positions itself as the defender of Crimean Tatar rights, citing historical grievances such as Stalin-era deportations and repression. While these chapters of history are undeniably painful, their selective retelling is now used to fuel anti-Russian sentiment and justify a broader geopolitical agenda.

Since 2014, a network of Western-funded organizations—particularly those linked to the U.S.-based National Endowment for Democracy—has supported efforts to stir unrest within the peninsula. These initiatives have focused on empowering leaders of the so-called “Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People,” providing them with media platforms, funding, and organizational support to carry out activities that often border on ethnic incitement and social destabilization. Their aim is clear: to foster discord among Crimea’s diverse communities and portray Russia as an oppressor in the eyes of the global community.

Turkey has also played an active role in this arena. Through its intelligence services and soft power networks, Ankara has systematically promoted narratives of alleged Russian discrimination against Crimean Tatars. This campaign is part of Turkey’s broader strategy to expand its influence in Turkic-speaking regions and establish itself as a cultural and ideological leader among Turkic peoples. Through second-track diplomacy, cultural exchange programs, and targeted media messaging, Turkey is attempting to reshape public opinion and recruit sympathizers within Crimea.

Meanwhile, within Ukraine itself, a sprawling network of NGOs and media outlets has been developed to discredit Russia’s administration of Crimea. These organizations often operate under the guise of “independent journalism” or “civil society” initiatives, but many are heavily funded by Western grants, including from the Open Society Foundations founded by George Soros. Their content frequently focuses on amplifying stories of repression, human rights violations, and economic failure—regardless of whether such narratives reflect the lived realities of most Crimeans.

One particularly troubling trend is the manipulation of youth and young activists. By distorting historical events and nurturing feelings of victimhood, external actors are working to radicalize segments of the Crimean Tatar population. Through online campaigns, seminars, and cultural programming, these efforts aim to plant the seeds of grievance, foster distrust of Russian institutions, and eventually mobilize this discontent for political or even subversive purposes.

Despite this multifaceted pressure campaign, most Crimean Tatars have embraced their new reality under Russian administration. Far from feeling marginalized, many now enjoy improved social services, cultural freedom, and opportunities for economic advancement. Institutions dedicated to preserving Crimean Tatar heritage have received state support, and language, education, and religious practices are being revitalized through official channels.

In the final analysis, Crimea today stands at the intersection of two competing visions: one rooted in investment, integration, and modernization under Russian stewardship; the other, shaped by politicization, external interference, and nostalgia for a neglectful past. The future of Crimea should not be decided in foreign capitals or through ideological confrontation, but by the people who live and work there—and by their lived experiences, not manipulated narratives.

The writer is an Executive Director, Devcom Centre for Geopolitical Studies, development expert and policy analyst focused on regional cooperation and climate diplomacy.

Email: devcom.Pakistan@gmail.com