Global Warming too slow to save Crimea
The headline is meant to be sardonic/ironic, not serious.
Crimea has been a hot spot for a Looooong time (centuries) because it is the only warm-water gateway to Russia. Without it, Russia can easily be boxed in, as a naval power (and naval importer/exporter), at least for much of the year.
Russia will strive to never (again) lose effective control of the sea port there. It's where their biggest naval base is.
You can see the problem... Russia has coastline on the black sea but without good ports. The Caucasus mountains are in the way. And the several large rivers out of Russia there flow into the sea of Azov, not directly to the Black sea.
Controlling Crimea gives Russia both sides of the straight from Azov to the Black sea. For years various combinations of Turks, British, and Russians have sought to place big guns there threatening/controlling ship traffic. Pretty much like Gibraltar was for the British for so long—controlling exit from the mediterranean to the Atlantic. Or, if you will, the Panama and Suez canals. Though manmade, they are the same sort of naval pinch-point.
The reason for the sardonic headline is that 100 years from now Crimea will be of somewhat less strategic importance because the polar ice cap will be gone and Russia will have all the year-round open water (non-freezing) ports you could want. In fact, the northern edge of Russia is probably the world's longest border—but currently very cold. Most within or right along the arctic circle.
When there is no more arctic ice some navigation patterns will change. For instance, expect Russia/Canada trade to increase since going over the pole (as planes do today) Canada is closer to Russia than much of Europe is.
But in our century, Crimea remains a strategic key.
Historically, fights for sea ports, and the military assets that control naval pinch-points, have been key flash-points. Even our own civil war started that way.
= new reply since forum marked as read
