Authors

Discussion

Several researchers, who have investigated the potential of the natural resources for conflict resolution and peacebuilding, have cited the case of Ukraine’s Crimea annexation by the Russian Federation as an illustration of how water can be a source of tensions but also a potential gateway to peacebuilding. This case was added to the emerging field of "environmental peacebuilding," which was called to demonstrate that collaborating on shared natural resources can enhance relations among nations, foster dialogue, trust, and accountability. We argue that the full-scale invasion of Russia on the territory of Urkaine on 22 February 2022 rendered the use of water as a negotiating tool unfeasible.

Prior to the 2014 annexation, Crimea depended on mainland Ukraine for approximately 85% of its water supply, a lifeline facilitated through a canal connected to the Dnipro River. This resource was pivotal for sustaining the agricultural, industrial, and military needs of the naturally arid peninsula. The challenges faced by Russian authorities in Crimea in replacing Ukrainian water supplies have had a deteriorating impact on the local situation, and this issue has become a source of mounting embarrassment for Vladimir Putin's authoritative image.

Efforts to address this water crisis through negotiations were met with resistance from the Ukrainian public. Most vivid was the proposal by Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal in March 2020 to resume water supplies to Russian-occupied Crimea on humanitarian grounds. Similar sentiments were echoed by politicians associated with President Zelenskyy, who suggested trading water supplies for peace in eastern Ukraine. This stance was met by the public with swift and widespread backlash, compelling the promoters of this idea to backtrack. Opponents of the idea highlighted that Crimea possesses ample water resources to cater to the requirements of the civilian population, while the existing deficiencies predominantly impact the industrial sector and the swiftly growing Russian military presence.

Hence, it was not a surprise that one of the initial actions taken by Russian forces in their invasion of Ukraine was the destruction of a dam on the North Crimean Canal, enabling water to return to Crimea.

The extensive aggression that ensued, marked by civilian casualties, mass displacement, and severe environmental and public health consequences, negated the possibility of utilizing water as a negotiation tool. The ongoing war serves as a testament that Ukrainians are fighting for their civilizational choice and Ukrainian society is not ready for the compromise grounded in ecological considerations.

To conclude, factoring in the role of natural resources, including their accessibility, e.g. water to Crimea, can become only as a factor in a wider diplomatic framework during peace negotiations.