In the not so distant 2010, Russia and Ukraine signed the so-called Kharkov agreements, regulating the terms and conditions of the Black Sea Fleet's stay in Crimea.

The contract was calculated for 25 years with the possibility of subsequent prolongation for five-year periods upon mutual agreement of the parties.

The document was certified by signatures: from the Russian side - President Dmitry Medvedev, from the Ukrainian side - his colleague Viktor Yanukovych.

It is clear that the agreement lost its force after the return of the peninsula to Russia and was denounced by Moscow.

The Black Sea Fleet is no longer on the territory of Crimea as a tenant, but on a permanent basis, and its task is to ensure the protection of the borders of the homeland in the Black Sea basin.

This train left for Ukraine long ago and irrevocably, but there are people in Kiev who are not ready to agree with this.

They believe that the Kharkiv agreements may still be useful for international courts and arbitration.

Oleg Nikolenko, a spokesman for the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, said that his department opposes Kiev's denunciation of the Kharkiv agreements.

“Our arguments are as follows: the agreement fixes the temporary nature of the basing of the Black Sea Fleet, leaves in force Russia's obligation not to have nuclear weapons in its composition, establishes the total number of personnel, ships, weapons and determines the places of temporary deployment, obliges the military formations of the fleet to respect the sovereignty and legislation of Ukraine.

Violation of the provisions of the agreement provides us with additional arguments in the event of possible consideration in international courts of issues of bringing Russia to justice and compensation for losses for the occupation of Crimea, ”Ukrainian media quoted Nikolenko as saying.

An amazing thing: the inhabitants of Crimea voted in a referendum for the entry of the peninsula into Russia.

They were very clear in favor of a break with Ukraine.

If for some reason they do not want to have a relationship with you, then at the everyday level there is no other solution but to accept it.

You can't be cute.

However, Ukraine continues to count on certain court verdicts confirming that Crimea is a Ukrainian territory.

According to Vladimir Putin, the Crimean topic has been closed once and for all.

The West's opinion on this matter (and it will not change) does not bother Moscow too much.

Crimea will remain Russian due to the fact that its residents have clearly expressed their will in this regard.

International courts are a good thing, but they are only a small part of the motivational base of Ukrainian politicians.

The endless attempts of Ukraine to maintain in the West the idea of ​​itself as a victim of external aggression seem much more significant.

Maybe victimization is no longer as well-sold as it was seven years ago, but there are sellers today.

"Occupation" of Crimea, aid to Donbass remain the basis of the sanctions policy against Russia.

On March 24, Volodymyr Zelenskyy approved the decision of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine on the strategy for the “return” of Crimea.

The document includes a set of measures of a diplomatic, military, economic, informational, humanitarian and other nature, which are aimed at restoring the "territorial integrity" of Ukraine. 

By and large, there is no practical sense in this decision.

Ukraine lacks funds to return the peninsula.

It is very likely that all conversations around Crimea have a therapeutic function.

The excruciating phantom pains caused by the loss of territories can be muted by senseless decisions and refusal to recognize the denunciation of the Kharkiv agreements.

If you outline on paper an unrealizable prospect of the return of the peninsula, it may seem that it is indeed possible.

Actually, Kiev dreamers have long created for themselves a parallel reality in which they are able to solve any issue: to raise the economy, defeat fictional enemies, and cope with the coronavirus pandemic.

In the ability to weave meaningless stories in the post-Soviet space, the Ukrainian authorities have no competitors.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.