[Goose]

While Western officials have publicly been behind Ukraine when they have talked about reclaiming all seized territories including Crimea, I think most observers have presumed that a peace would involve Russia retaining Crimea.

I think you are correct for some time in the past. Early on, the idea Ukraine could even survive, let alone regain Crimea seemed fanciful. Eventually it became accepted that this could actually happen and it became politic to at least publicly embrace this idea. However, I think some "mature reflection" among both the Ukrainian government and their NATO supporters have come to the (correct IMO) realization that Ukraine without Crimea is not a viable state. Russia controlling access to the sea of Azov and possessing the only really viable naval base on the Black Sea is just too much for Ukraine to live with. On top of that, holding Crimea de facto allows blocking navigation of the Dnipro river because it is so easy to mine the approaches operating out of Sevastopol.

Every nation since the 1800s that has attempted to occupy Ukraine has in the end attempted to take Crimea. Whoever holds Crimea becomes the major naval power on the Black Sea and controls the Sea of Azov. Odesa and Constanta have been tried as substitutes and simply didn't cut it. Russia tried to substitute Novorossiysk and it didn't (and doesn't, the way things are going) "work" for them either. If Russia was Canada then maybe, possibly, Ukraine could live with Crimea not being under their direct control but having a "99 year" lease on Sevastopol. That isn't the case and Russia is not suddenly going to become a good neighbor. Going forward, Ukraine could actually live with the 2014 boundaries in the Donbas much easier than it can without Crimea.

[Goose]

While Western officials have publicly been behind Ukraine when they have talked about reclaiming all seized territories including Crimea, I think most observers have presumed that a peace would involve Russia retaining Crimea.

I think you are correct for some time in the past. Early on, the idea Ukraine could even survive, let alone regain Crimea seemed fanciful. Eventually it became accepted that this could actually happen and it became politic to at least publicly embrace this idea. However, I think some "mature reflection" among both the Ukrainian government and their NATO supporters have come to the (correct IMO) realization that Ukraine without Crimea is not a viable state. Russia controlling access to the sea of Azov and possessing the only really viable naval base on the Black Sea is just too much for Ukraine to live with. On top of that, holding Crimea de facto allows blocking navigation of the Dnipro river because it is so easy to mine the approaches operating out of Sevastopol.

Every nation since the 1800s that has attempted to occupy Ukraine has in the end attempted to take Crimea. Whoever holds Crimea becomes the major naval power on the Black Sea and controls the Sea of Azov. Odesa and Constanta have been tried as substitutes and simply didn't cut it. Russia tried to substitute Novorossiysk and it didn't (and doesn't, the way things are going) "work" for them either. If Russia was Canada then maybe, possibly, Ukraine could live with Crimea not being under their direct control but having a "99 year" lease on Sevastopol. That isn't the case and Russia is not suddenly going to become a good neighbor. Going forward, Ukraine could actually live with the 2014 boundaries in the Donbas much easier than it can without Crimea.