Why in Kiev they started talking about the return of water to Crimea

On the eve of Ukraine, two initiatives were voiced at once on the issue of the possibility of restoring the water supply to Crimea. One was from the very "top", and the other - from the "bottom". Moreover, none of them has a practical chance of being implemented. What gives us reason to believe so?

As you know, the problem of water supply to Crimea arose after its transition to the Russian Federation. Almost immediately after the registration of the will of the Crimeans, made at a national referendum, Kiev decided to punish them by cutting off the water supply through the North Crimean Canal. Until 2014, the peninsula received up to 85% of fresh water from the mainland from the territory of Ukraine. The political the act had very serious consequences for economics and ecology of the new Russian region. Without water, none of the local residents, of course, has yet died, but some branches of agriculture, for example, rice growing, have disappeared as a species.

Even worse, a few years ago, due to a shortage of fresh water in the acid reservoirs of the Crimean Titan enterprise, a real ecological disaster occurred: in hot weather, a dangerous acid cloud formed due to strong evaporation, which led to a partial evacuation of the population in the city of Armyansk. And last summer, due to an abnormally warm and snowless winter, a real drought began on the peninsula, the consequences of which have not been eliminated to this day. Water in Crimea is still served with restrictions.

In general, the problem is very serious. It is being solved by drilling new artesian wells, building new water intakes, and repairing water transport infrastructure. The question of the possibility of seawater desalination is being considered. Until 2024, Moscow has allocated 48 billion rubles for this purpose. However, one should be aware that this is not a quick matter, and the shortage of water on the peninsula will make itself felt in the future for more than one year. The issue could be completely closed by unblocking the North Crimean Canal, but Kiev does not intend to do this for political reasons. They think so: the Crimea will be Ukrainian, and there will be Ukrainian water on it. But suddenly they started talking about the possibility of getting the Crimeans drunk both in Kiev and in neighboring Kherson. What is it for?

The bottom-up initiative

The day before, the resonant statement of the mayor of Kherson, Igor Kolykhaev, made a lot of noise in the Ukrainian segment of the Internet. He said about the advisability of moving to "economic" relations with Russia and Crimea:

I am for economic relations. Are you for the fact that we buy electricity and gas in Russia? Why do we buy? .. I believe that if Crimea is Ukraine, then there should be water in Crimea. Yes, in Ukrainian. Or then sell water as an option.

Here it is, an infrequent voice of reason in Ukraine. Indeed, for some reason Kiev does not hesitate to buy Russian electricity and diesel fuel, but refuses to receive money for the supply of water to Crimea. Where is the logic? Well, then let the Ukrainian leadership be consistent and stop taking energy resources from the “aggressor country”. Either put on panties, or take off the cross, as in an old anecdote. And after all, in the Crimea, they initially offered to buy water at market prices, but the modern Ukrainian government turned out to be all so windy and inconsistent: here it took it, here it didn’t give it. Okay, this is all jokes, of course. The local jingoistic patriots naturally immediately recorded the Kherson mayor as "national traitors."

Top-down initiatives

Of much greater interest are the statements of the Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Andriy Reznik, made in an interview with a well-known British publication. He said the following:

Let's get people drunk. If it is really a monitoring mission, an international humanitarian mission will say: "People, we need to help" ... With tanks, barrels, whatever. There are three checkpoints - Kalanchak, Chongar, Chaplinka, there are roads, we'll take it. We'll provide the Red Cross - under their flag, no problem.

And here I would like to walk on the initiative of Kiev. Two key points need to be highlighted:

At firstWhat do you mean by "tanks, barrels"? In fact, Crimeans have something to drink, no one dies of thirst there. And even if they died by the grace of the Ukrainian authorities, how many barrels would it take to water almost two million local residents, as well as guests of the peninsula, on a daily basis? In Crimea, they expect the opening of the North Crimean Canal from Kiev in order to use the Dnieper water primarily for agricultural and domestic needs. No cisterns and buckets at the checkpoints can bring enough water. In general, the Ukrainian official, in a rather mocking manner, simply replaces concepts.

Secondly, and it is possible in more detail, what kind of "international monitoring humanitarian mission" is it, which should plead for the Crimeans in front of Kiev? Did Moscow agree to interact with some similar structure on the affairs of its two subjects?

Apparently, Ukraine is stubbornly pushing for the creation of the so-called "Crimean Platform", a kind of international organization, which should include sympathetic countries, the purpose of which is to exert joint pressure on Russia. At this site, its participants intend to coordinate actions to ensure "security" in Crimea, freedom of navigation, protection of human rights and more effective anti-Russian sanctions. It is precisely in the logic of such a structure that the "international monitoring humanitarian mission" fits in, deciding issues with water in exchange for something. But do the Crimeans need this water at such a price? Or is it still worth the trouble with desalination and stop depending on such "well-wishers"?
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) April 10 2021 15: 04
    In fact, it's interesting.
    Kiev refuses to let water into Crimea, even for money, but Russia itself only sells fuel, electricity, gas, titanium, aluminum and other goodies to Kiev.
    And then there is the Republic of Belarus, Poland, Germany, which also sell Russian.

    We must rejoice! - the reaction itself. Money doesn't smell ...
    1. Potapov Offline Potapov
      Potapov (Valery) April 11 2021 09: 05
      For the bourgeoisie, money doesn't smell ... They won't wait for money from us, we don't have it, thanks to the Party and other lackeys of the Demschiz ... More likely fascists with American-European money are their own than we are ...
    2. Leonidas Grips Offline Leonidas Grips
      Leonidas Grips (Leonidas Zakatov) April 13 2021 17: 35
      Unfortunately, the Ukrainians keep their word, they are not sold for a dollar, unlike Russia, which will sell its mother for a dollar, and will supply gas, electricity, and oil products in the appendage. ...
  2. GRF Offline GRF
    GRF April 10 2021 15: 52
    Why in Kiev they started talking about the return of water to Crimea

    Because they realized that they can do without, and money is lost, and sometimes they poke their muzzle at it for this ...
  3. Petr Vladimirovich (Peter) April 10 2021 16: 20
    Hello everyone! Perhaps someone knows who invented rice growing in the steppe Crimea, and before the heap also a chemical plant in the resort region?
    1. Radar62 Offline Radar62
      Radar62 (Novel) April 12 2021 06: 42
      Everything is very simple. In general, it was invented by reasonable, rational people, statesmen, who thought on the scale of a huge country, which they thought was built for centuries. And who did not at all count on Selyukov's stupidity, cave-like anger and envy.
  4. George W. Bush - medium (George Bush - average) April 10 2021 16: 39
    At the end of the Soviet regime, supporters of Ukrainian independence shouted loudly that Ukrainians, like any other Soviet people, have the right to secede from the USSR. If we logically continue the thread of this reasoning, then any nation also has the right to secede from Ukraine. Why is it possible for Ukraine to leave the USSR, while others cannot leave the structure of Ukraine? Kiev has no answer to this question.
    If Kiev considers the transfer of Crimea to the Russian Federation illegitimate, why should the transfer of Crimea from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954 be considered legal? And at that time, Crimea remained in the USSR, no one transferred it to another state.
    The reunification of Crimea with the Russian Federation occurred as a result of the will of the inhabitants of the peninsula. In 1954, no one asked the opinion of the inhabitants of the peninsula. And if Kiev calls the Soviet government criminal, why doesn't it call the forced transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR a criminal act? Kiev also has no answer to this question. request
    1. George Offline George
      George (Yuri) April 11 2021 07: 12
      It's not simple, but very simple - why, for example, the plant belonged to the state and the profit was somehow spent on the country (well, yes - something was stolen, I do not argue), and now, quite officially, the profit for no apparent reason began to be devoured into one mouthful of an oligarch and spend quite a bit on the country? The situation, however ...
      1. Petr Vladimirovich (Peter) April 11 2021 19: 37
        But this is correct ...
    2. Semenof Offline Semenof
      Semenof (Andrey Semenov) April 12 2021 06: 23
      There is one more question that no Svidomo can answer, Khrushchev handed over Crimea, and Sevastopol? who passed it on? There is not a single document on the transfer, the occupation is in its pure form
      1. George W. Bush - medium (George Bush - average) April 12 2021 10: 46
        They beat the drums of war to drown out the clatter of empty pans!
    3. Radar62 Offline Radar62
      Radar62 (Novel) April 12 2021 06: 32
      And you are good too laughing ! You ask reasonable questions and the Kiev authorities. It's like throwing pearls in front of pigs. What to do, as it was said when that, is not worth it.
      There Americans are teachers, and they are masters of double approaches (standards). It is corny of course, but true ...
  5. pol_pol Offline pol_pol
    pol_pol (Vladimir Nikolayevich) April 12 2021 14: 52
    There will be water in Crimea.
    Without filing it from the Dnieper.
    And if the "Ukrainians", i.e. gangs of Russian shape-shifters who called themselves that, there will be a desire to send water to the Crimea, then for this, for receiving water in Crimea, they will have to take money from them.
  6. The comment was deleted.
  7. goland72 Offline goland72
    goland72 (Andrei) April 15 2021 11: 39
    If water does flow through the North Crimean Canal, then its quality will need to be constantly and very carefully monitored. Since any Bender scum can easily add problems to it.
  8. Alex Orlov Offline Alex Orlov
    Alex Orlov (Alex) April 22 2021 21: 51
    I think that the issue with Ukraine should be finally resolved this or next year. And then there will be as much water in the Crimea.
  9. alex-sherbakov48 April 28 2021 07: 47
    If Putin and our government had shown will, the issue of water for Crimea would have been resolved very quickly. It is only necessary to start construction work to block the Dnieper and Desna rivers, direct the waters of these rivers to the Don or Volga rivers, and from there, using pumps and large-diameter pipes, direct the water to the Crimea. I am sure that the banderlog will not want to cross the Dnieper into a ford, where the water will be knee-deep in a sparrow. The issue of opening the CCM would be resolved instantly.