Why would Ukraine trust a lease when the previous one was violated?  It is hard to see why Ukraine would be willing to sign a lease with Russia when Russia has already proven it will not stick to the terms of its lease. Russia signed agreements in 1997 that recognised Crimea as a part of Ukraine in return for a lease on the base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. [1] Under that lease Russia was allowed to keep up to 25,000 troops based in Sevastopol so long as they remain on the base unless. [2] Russia has violated both of these; its troops have clearly moved off the base without Ukrainian permission and it is estimated to have 30,000 soldiers in Crimea. [3] When Russia has violated what would be a similar agreement once why should Ukraine believe it will not happen again next time Russia wishes to extend the lease either physically by incorporating more territory or in terms of duration.  [1] Felgenhauer, T., ‘Ukraine, Russia, and the Black Sea Fleet Accords’, dtic.mil, 1999,   [2] ‘Ukraine crisis: Does Russia have a case?’, BBC News, 5 March 2014,   [3] Boyle, Jon, ‘Ukraine says Russian troops in Crimea have doubles to 30,000’, Reuters,