Crimea was never simply a peninsula bulging into the Black Sea—it’s the pulsating heart of Russia’s campaign in southern Ukraine and a powerful symbol for Vladimir Putin’s government. Ever since Russia annexed the peninsula in 2014, Crimea has been a staging area for invasions, a fortified stronghold bristling with cutting-edge hardware, and a propaganda prize. But in the last year, Ukraine has reversed the situation, unleashing a relentless onslaught of precision attacks that are increasingly undermining Russia’s grip on the region.
The strategic importance of Crimea to Moscow cannot be overstated. It hosts the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol, a vast complex of airfields, radar facilities, and logistics centers, and it pins down Russia’s lines of supply into occupied southern Ukraine. For Putin, Crimea is not just a military asset—it’s a pillar of his story about Russian greatness and historic destiny. Losing it, or even looking vulnerable there, would be a personal and political blow.
Ukraine’s military planners understand this all too well. Since the summer of 2023, Kyiv has methodically targeted Russian infrastructure across Crimea, aiming to degrade its value as a rear-area staging ground and disrupt the flow of troops, fuel, and ammunition to the front lines. Initial attacks targeted bridges and railway connections, including the Chonhar and Henichesk bridges and the symbolically important Kerch Strait Bridge that links Crimea to the Russian mainland. Disabling these conduits has compelled Moscow to transfer supplies over increasingly exposed routes, straining Russian logistics and opening them up to even more attack.
But the game-changer has been the deployment of Western-supplied long-range missiles, particularly the US-produced Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS). With a 300-kilometer range, ATACMS enables Ukraine to strike targets well within Crimea—air-defense batteries, command centers, airfields, and even naval vessels—without endangering aircraft or putting ground forces at risk. Ukraine has employed these missiles “very effectively,” knocking out or damaging a minimum of 15 Russian long-range air defense batteries in Crimea, including the powerful S-300 and S-400 batteries, Russia’s version of the American Patriot system. These strikes have compelled Moscow to shift valuable air defense assets from other areas, weakening its general posture.
ATACMS is no ordinary rocket. Manufactured by Lockheed Martin, it’s a surface-to-surface ballistic missile that can be fired from the tracked M270 MLRS or wheeled M142 HIMARS. There are two principal varieties: a cluster warhead version that disperses hundreds of bomblets over an extensive area—perfect for destroying parked planes, air defenses, and groups of troops—and a unitary warhead meant to destroy hardened targets. Its steep terminal descent and high speed have made it famously hard to intercept, particularly when employed in salvos coordinated with drones and cruise missiles to saturate Russian defenses.
The effect on Russian operations has been dramatic. Ukrainian attacks have not only wrecked equipment but also instilled panic and confusion among Russian commanders. Following a series of attacks on the Black Sea Fleet headquarters in Sevastopol and shipyards, Russia was forced to redeploy much of its fleet to Novorossiysk, well out of range of the fighting. This withdrawal has restricted the fleet’s capacity to menace Ukraine’s grain exports and project power in the western Black Sea. In the meantime, incessant strikes on logistics centers and ferry crossings have led Moscow to increasingly depend on the already-bombarded Kerch Bridge, a situation many analysts think is impossible to sustain in the long term.
The psychological impact of the strikes cannot be overstated. Russian state media has moved rapidly to feature civilian deaths and destruction, blaming the US and NATO for “direct involvement” in the war. The Kremlin has called in the US ambassador and made threatening noises about “consequences,” but thus far its responses have been rhetorical or symbolic. Nevertheless, the threat of escalation—including indirect mentions of nuclear weapons—remains a persistent background to the war.
For Ukraine, the campaign is more than mere attrition. By methodically weakening Russian air defenses and supply lines, Kyiv is laying the groundwork for operations to come—whether that entails more aggressive strikes, the deployment of Western-supplied F-16s, or even an advance to regain the peninsula. As Ben Hodges, former US Army Europe commander, was quoted as saying, Ukraine is “pursuing air defenses to lay the foundation for whatever comes next.” F-16s will only heighten this impact, as long as Russia’s air defense system keeps getting eroded.
Of course, this does not at all ensure a quick and clear-cut Ukrainian victory in Crimea. Russian troops remain dug in, and Moscow has heavily invested in fortifications, new rail networks, and defenses in depth. But the relentless pounding from Ukrainian attacks has compelled the Kremlin to make difficult decisions regarding where to send its best troops and how to defend its most prized possessions. Thus, Crimea is no longer the “unsinkable aircraft carrier” it was. Instead, it’s become a liability—a weak link in Russia’s war effort that Ukraine is determined to exploit, missile by missile, drone by drone.
The wider implications are straightforward. As the strike power of Ukraine increases and the support of the West continues, the price of occupation for Russia will only increase. Whether it results in a negotiated resolution, a great escalation, or an attritional war is unknown. But this is certain: the war in Crimea is far from finished, and its result will determine the direction of the conflict as a whole.
