No one wants to prolong the war in Ukraine and the world is looking for quick solutions. That is why, recently, we’ve been hearing murmurs about an “Israeli” or “Korean” scenario, which allude to Ukraine’s “concessions” of its territory for the sake of so-called victory and peace. The reference is of course to Crimea. Such a compromise will help avoid a nuclear war, they say.

But, is it really so?

For the most part, the notion that Ukraine should compromise on Crimea is not stated overtly. After all, there are international obligations, declarations of the UN General Assembly, the participation of heads of state in the Crimea Platform summits and, ultimately, the UN Charter – all of which declare their support for the territorial integrity of the Ukrainian state. However, the implication of a compromise with Russia on the Crimean question is clearly there.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy maintains a clear position on this.

“We cannot imagine Ukraine without Crimea. As long as Crimea is under Russian occupation, it means one thing: The war is not over,” is just one of the many points that the President makes at international forums and in the media.

The stance of the Ukrainian people is also important. According to a study by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, 82 percent of Ukrainians will not accept any compromise with Russia regarding Crimea.

We speak with our international partners and provide detailed arguments to those who believe Crimea is some sort of “special case.” However, as soon as we feel we are starting to make progress, our efforts are dismantled by a single interview or tweet. For example, former US President Barack Obama justified the weak reaction of the US to the 2014 Crimean occupation, saying: “There is a reason … there lived a Russian-speaking population who had sympathy for Russia.”

First of all, such a notion contradicts the facts established by judicial bodies, for example, the European Court of Human Rights, which de facto recognized the occupation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in 2014. Not to mention all the other political documents confirming and condemning the illegal occupation.

Another striking example is Elon Musk and his “peace plan” that called for Ukraine to give up Crimea, as it was allegedly “always part of Russia until [Nikita] Khrushchev’s mistake.”

We still have a long road ahead to dispel the myths that reinforce the international community’s perception that occupying Crimea was “illegal, but fair” as it was well put recently by Ukrainian researchers following the international perception of Crimea. For instance, we must draw attention to the fact that the transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR was a collective decision by Soviet authorities and dictated by pragmatic considerations and not by a “drunk Khrushchev.” Furthermore, it was an attempt to overcome the consequences of the deportation of the indigenous Crimean Tatar people and the devastation of the Second World War – not a generous gift to Soviet Ukraine.

Crimea has always been connected to mainland Ukraine, both geographically and politically. Yes, there were wars – for example, between the Cossack predecessors of the Ukrainian state and the Crimean Khanate – but there was also a military-defensive alliance and trade relations. These connections existed throughout the centuries and they continue to exist in the present day when Crimeans – including the indigenous Crimean Tatar people – together with the Ukrainians are fighting for their freedom and independence. The recent appointment of Rustem Umerov, an ethnic Crimean Tatar, as Minister of Defense is only further proof.

The nature of relations between Crimea and mainland Ukraine is all about interaction, exchange and partnership, while the nature of the contacts between the peninsula and Russia has always been about colonization, annexation, occupation, violence and genocide.

This has been prevalent since the 18th century, specifically since 1783, when the Russian Empire annexed the peninsula, as a result of which the Crimean Tatars were forced to leave the territory. The policy of genocide further continued under Soviet rule. This culminated in the deportation of the Crimean Tatars in 1944, which resulted in the deaths of almost 100,000 people out of a population of 200,000, and their total removal from the peninsula. My family, like any other Crimean Tatar family, was also a victim of deportation, which is why I was born not in my homeland, but in Uzbekistan. While Western democracies still publicly apologize for colonization, slavery and build true diplomatic relations with their former colonies, Russia not only does not reflect on its colonial legacy, but actively upholds it.

Even after many difficult decades in exile, when my people were finally able to return home to Crimea after the Soviet collapse, we were again forced to leave our homeland in 2014. Although our international partners sometimes react skeptically to our attempts to look into history, it was Vladimir Putin who first turned to history to legitimise himself. However, when we do investigate the history of the Crimean Peninsula, all evidence points to the fact that the claim “Crimea is Ukraine” is both legal and fair.

Even European bureaucratic institutions have started realizing this. The Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Dunja Mijatović, published a report titled ‘The Struggle of the Crimean Tatars for Human Rights,’ which begins with the 18th century. “After the annexation of the peninsula by the Russian Empire, Russian settlers deprived the Crimean Tatars of their lands … tens of thousands of Crimean Tatars left for the Ottoman Empire during this period. In the 19th century, the Crimean Tatars were among the peoples who were persecuted and repressed, including arbitrary arrests and executions without trial, which led to several waves of mass emigration of the Crimean Tatars from Crimea during the 19th and 20th centuries,” the report said.

Instead of realizing this and helping us overcome the consequences of genocidal policies, the international community is afraid of the so-called “red lines” that Putin allegedly drew. It is difficult to argue with this, because this idea is not rational, but rather is based on fear and the presumption of what is going on in the head of the Russian dictator.

However, I want to quote the director for Europe at the White House National Security Council and a Ukrainian by origin, Alexander Vindman. In an interview with ‘Ukrainska Pravda,’ he argues that the use of nuclear weapons, in terms of the consequences for Russia itself, will become a “red line” due to the reaction of India and China as well as provoking a significantly tougher response from NATO. He further argues that “this is a risk that Putin is not ready to take. We have already seen what he is willing to do when he is cornered. He is looking for other options. He is looking for ways to manoeuver, looking for ways to survive.”

For all those who think that “giving up Crimea” will solve something, it is worth remembering how Russia has taken advantage of its control over Crimea since 2014. The Russian Federation turned the peninsula into a large military base, which it is currently using for a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, so what gives us the basis to think that the aggressor will change his approach?

Therefore, it is not surprising that the full-scale invasion provoked hundreds of anti-war solidarity actions in Crimea, several resistance initiatives, the largest of which is the Yellow Ribbon. This movement operates not only in Crimea, but also in all of the occupied territories. However, the largest number of resistance actions take place on the peninsula, which is remarkable.

People shout “Glory to Ukraine” in public places, spread the inscriptions “The Armed Forces of Ukraine are coming,” “Crimea is Ukraine,” get tattoos with the Ukrainian map that includes Crimea, consciously taking the risk of becoming a target for persecution by the occupiers. Activists are destroying land routes for the supply of military equipment to the Russian Armed Forces, reporting on the berthing of Russian military facilities and setting fire to the vehicles of those who collaborate with the occupation.

I am often asked what the sentiment is on the Crimean Peninsula. Well, Crimea does not want to see the Russian flag. Crimea is waiting for Ukraine. And this is enough to keep the fight on.