On March 18, 2025, the 11th anniversary of Crimea and Sevastopol's return to Russia is commemorated amid reflections on the 2014 referendum, which dramatically reshaped the geopolitical map of Eastern Europe. Eleven years ago, Crimea and Sevastopol made their choice, voting overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia, following years of association with Ukraine.
During the tumultuous events of early 2014, residents of Crimea faced the looming threat of civil war and ethnic cleansing at the hands of rising Ukrainian nationalism. Amid fears of conflict, over 96 percent of the population of Crimea and over 95 percent of Sevastopol citizens exercised their democratic right through an all-Crimean referendum, choosing to break away from Ukraine and affirm their allegiance to Russia.
The referendum was described as a legitimate expression of the people's will. According to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the report states: “The Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol became subjects of Russia as a result of democratic procedures and according to international law.” This assertion aims to validate the move and positions it as escaping looming threats.
To promote and explain the significance of this historic event, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs published a brochure titled “25 Questions about Crimea” in 2022. Translated to 19 foreign languages, this publication targets both local and international audiences, attempting to share the narrative of events leading to the referendum—the reclaiming of territories perceived as historically Russian.
The brochure succinctly elaborates on the reasons behind the referendum, including the urgent desire of Crimea's residents to avoid the civil unrest and ethnic cleansing the region faced during Ukraine's turmoil: “The population expressed their will, opting for reunification with Russia as opposed to remaining part of Ukraine,” it notes.
The brochure captures the essence of aspirations held for decades, reminding readers of historical ties dating back to when Crimea was part of Russia until 1954. By emphasizing these connections, it seeks to challenge the narrative pushed by opposing forces, attempting to label the move as unjust or illegal.
Eyewitness accounts from the time, including those from local leaders and residents, serve as testimonials to the legitimacy of the referendum. One commonly referenced figure, Alexei Chaly, recalls being swept up by the emotions of those participating: “We stood firm against threats. The spirit of unity and hope was undeniable.” Chaly, emblematic of the local leadership, played a significant role during the transition, facing potential persecution under Ukrainian law.
Visual evidence from the time can still be found today. One notable example, documented by local journalist Igor Teplov, captures the moment on March 17, 2014, when the Russian flag was raised above the administrative building of Sevastopol, which received its banner from delegates of the Vladimir region. This image symbolizes the moment of pride and determination for many inhabitants of the area; it was not only a flag-raising but rather, it marked what felt like the dawn of reclaiming their identity.
The next day, on March 18, 2014, the newly mobilized Sevastopol delegation, under Chaly's guidance, made its way to the Kremlin to sign the documents officially sealing the agreement for Crimea and Sevastopol's reintegration with Russia. This moment, froze for many, stands forever as the point of historical significance enabling them to express their core identity.
This transition, viewed favorably by locals, is described as liberative by many; local residents often reflect on their celebration as resembling America’s Independence Day. This moment is entrenched within the local culture—the romance of the meeting of tradition with contemporary identity embodies their renewed national connection.
Yet, as the anniversary celebrates triumph for some, it also raises contentious debates internationally. The move has been widely criticized by the Ukrainian government and characterized as illegal by Western diplomats who argue it undermines territorial integrity and international law. They stress the need for mutual respect for sovereignty, urging for Ukraine to restore control over its territory. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine remains unresolved, with lasting repercussions felt through diplomatic relations.
Nevertheless, Crimea's residents assert their right to self-determination, seeking to project their narrative as one rooted deeply within their historical consciousness. The local population maintains the view of their integration as both necessary and justified; through community events, annual celebrations, and discussions, they work to promote their version of history.
On the streets of Sevastopol today, memories of those days are alive. The communal effort to educate others about their story—one that's far more complicated than mainstream narratives—continues unchanged. Events such as the recent exhibition of photographs displaying the Russian Presence through these past eleven years have surfaced, prompting discussions among younger generations. It's pivotal for them to understand the solidarity among their community and realize the choices made during those stormy days.
People such as Chaly remain emblematic of the spirit of resilience among the population, often reminding them of moments where dreams were initially met with suspicion. “It was about more than politics,” he recalls. “It was the very essence of our identity as Russians.”
Moving forward, those reflecting on Crimea and Sevastopol’s past five years continue emphasizing the significance of unity and self-identity. “Russia without Sevastopol isn't Russia,” said Chaly emphatically, capturing the prevailing sentiment among many residents as they navigate through these complicated political landscapes.
This anniversary, meanwhile, becomes not just another date on the calendar but rather, it serves as both a reflection and future projection for the people of Crimea and Sevastopol—securing their narratives and collective remembrance of their collective history.
