The latest Sky News 'explainer' about Ukraine - Explained: Why Crimea is important to Russian and Ukraine - needs a little more explanation itself.

The peninsula was illegally annexed by Russia in 2014, and the country's foreign minister has insisted Russia will not negotiate "its own territory" (see previous post).

The language here is not quite accurate.

The Crimea was actually 're-annexed'. The first annexation was by Catherine the Great in 1783. It was annexed by the Russian Empire from the Ottoman Empire and steadily Russified over the centuries.

So the territory had been Russian and then Soviet for over 200 hundred years before it became part of independent Ukraine in 1991. 

In 2013-14, a popular uprising gripped Ukraine for several weeks, eventually forcing pro-Moscow President Viktor Yanukovych from office.

Or, depending on your viewpoint...a right-wing nationalist coup backed by external actors deposed a legitimately elected government and the new rulers then began a crackdown on the population of Eastern Ukraine forcing many to flee East to Russia.

Why it's important

Russia has spent centuries fighting for Crimea.

True. The reason why is that the Russian navy's Black Sea base is at Sevastopol.

So why would it give up this strategic base to NATO as that is inevitably what would have happened?

When did you last see the USA give up a major naval base to China?

But Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea from Russia to Ukraine in 1954, when both were part of the USSR.

Crimea was arbitrarily transferred to the Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) of Ukraine by Ukrainian Soviet leader Khruschev. Was it thought of as 'belonging' to 'Ukraine' at the time? Not clear.

We do know that the first President of Ukraine, Leonid Kravchuk, claims that Crimea was 'forced' on Ukraine by Kruschev in 1954 and implies that Ukraine could have done without its economic problems, Because there was no food, water, nothing in the Crimea.

[https://uawire.org/news/kravchuk-ukraine-was-forced-to-take-crimea-in-1954].

In 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed, the peninsula became part of an independent Ukraine.

By the time Russia seized it, Crimea had been a part of Ukraine for 60 years and had become part of the country's identity.

Well maybe. Even the Kyiv Post admits in an opinion piece in 2023:

It’s important to understand that at the international level, Ukraine was known as a part of the Soviet Union.

...

In 1991,“Ukraine” was an unknown word. Not all other nations even tried to recognize its independence.

[https://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/16875]

So it's quite a stretch to claim that the Crimea had been part of the identity of the 'country' of 'Ukraine' for 60 years.

23 years would be more accurate.

This is not about whether it was legal or not for Russia to re-annex the Crimea but whether mainstream media 'explanations' are really accurate and nuanced enough to be taken seriously.

Or are they just supporting a particular narrative?