The Sarstoon Is Not Crimea. That Is Precisely Why Belize Must Pay Attention.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s reflections on Russia’s seizure of Crimea raise an uncomfortable question for Belize, where recurring confrontations along the Sarstoon River continue despite an ongoing territorial case before the International Court of Justice. The circumstances are different, but the consequences of allowing contested territorial practices to become normalized deserve serious examination.
There is something particularly unsettling about listening to the president of a country at war explain how that war began, especially when you come from a country whose own territorial integrity remains the subject of an unresolved international dispute. I was watching President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s interview on The Diary of a CEO when his reflections on Crimea brought my attention immediately back to Belize. He was discussing the events of 2014, the appearance of armed personnel whose Russian identity was initially denied, and the gradual consolidation of control over Ukrainian territory before the full-scale invasion of February 2022.
As a Belizean, I could not help thinking about the Sarstoon River, Sarstoon Island and the recurring confrontations involving Guatemalan military personnel and Belizeans attempting to navigate the area. The circumstances are not identical, and I would not suggest that they are. Guatemala’s armed forces operate openly under Guatemalan authority, while Russia initially concealed the identity of the personnel involved in its takeover of Crimea. Nevertheless, there is a strategic question that deserves examination: what happens when repeated assertions of authority over contested territory begin changing the practical conditions under which another country exercises its sovereignty?
I have no interest in manufacturing an international crisis where one does not exist. Belize has spent generations pursuing the peaceful resolution of its territorial dispute with Guatemala, and that process remains before the International Court of Justice. But peaceful intentions do not relieve a country of the responsibility to recognize developments that could undermine its position or endanger its citizens. Diplomacy is most valuable when it prevents a confrontation, not merely when it explains one afterward.
What struck me about Zelenskyy’s account was the significance of looking backward after events have escalated beyond anyone’s original expectations. History can make the warning signs of a catastrophe appear obvious once the consequences are known. The difficulty for governments is recognizing which developments deserve attention before their significance becomes undeniable. I would rather Belize examine those questions today than discover, years from now, that there were matters we should have investigated more seriously.
Crimea Did Not Begin in February 2022
The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was not the beginning of the territorial conflict between the two countries. In February and March 2014, Russian forces participated in the seizure of Crimea, initially operating through personnel whose uniforms lacked identifying insignia. These armed men became widely known as the little green men, a description that reflected the uncertainty surrounding their identity during the early stages of the operation.
Russia initially denied that the personnel were members of its armed forces. President Vladimir Putin subsequently acknowledged Russian military involvement. By that time, Russian forces had already secured strategic locations, Ukrainian military installations had been blockaded, and Moscow had proceeded with the annexation of the peninsula. The international community overwhelmingly rejected the legitimacy of that annexation, but the immediate reality on the ground had changed.
The significance of these events extends beyond the use of unidentified military personnel. Russia demonstrated how military presence, political messaging and control over strategic infrastructure could be combined to establish a new territorial reality before the international community could produce an effective response. The subsequent years demonstrated the difficulty of reversing such developments through diplomatic pressure alone.
Zelenskyy’s reflections invite consideration of the relationship between early intervention, deterrence and the eventual costs of unresolved aggression. They do not establish that any particular alternative response in 2014 would necessarily have prevented the invasion of 2022. History does not permit that degree of certainty. But the sequence demonstrates why territorial incidents should be evaluated not only individually, but also according to the patterns they may establish over time. That is the part of the history that interests me as a Belizean.
The Sarstoon Has Its Own Warning Signs
The Sarstoon is not an abstract geographical reference in Belize’s territorial dispute. It is a river used by people, a location of strategic significance and an area where questions concerning sovereignty have produced direct encounters between Belizean and Guatemalan personnel. Those encounters matter because territorial disputes are experienced not only through maps and legal arguments, but also through the ability of citizens and public authorities to move and operate without obstruction.
In September 2025, CARICOM issued an unusually direct statement following reports from Belize concerning Guatemalan military activity in the Sarstoon. According to the regional organization, Guatemalan Armed Forces personnel entered Belizean territory on several occasions between September 10 and 13, hoisted a Guatemalan flag on Belizean territory, attempted to ram a Belizean military vessel and obstructed Belizeans navigating the river.
CARICOM called for an end to the incursions and emphasized the importance of avoiding actions that could escalate into military confrontation. The organization also reaffirmed its support for Belize’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. These were not merely allegations circulating through social media. They were concerns formally communicated by Belize and addressed by the Caribbean Community.
The incidents did not end the wider dispute, nor did they establish that a military invasion was imminent. But they demonstrated that disagreements concerning territorial authority were producing confrontations involving armed personnel. The distinction matters because an unresolved legal dispute becomes more dangerous when its practical management repeatedly exposes civilians and security forces to potentially escalating encounters.
The situation resurfaced in September 2026. Belize formally protested another incident involving Guatemalan military and civilian vessels that reportedly obstructed Belizean nationals undertaking their customary passage around Sarstoon Island. The Belize Territorial Volunteers, accompanied by Belizean security personnel, had attempted their annual journey through the area.
According to reporting on the government’s diplomatic protest, approximately 18 Guatemalan military and civilian vessels were involved in the confrontation. Belize maintained that the vessels were operating in Belizean waters near Sarstoon Island and registered its objection through diplomatic channels. These developments deserve examination as part of a continuing pattern rather than a collection of unrelated incidents. The question is not simply whether Belize protested each confrontation. It is whether the arrangements intended to prevent their recurrence are sufficiently effective.
The Difference Between a Claim and Control
Territorial disputes involve questions of law, history, treaties, sovereignty and the interpretation of international obligations. But they also involve practical questions about who exercises authority within a particular geographical area. Those two dimensions are related without being identical.
A country may assert a legal claim without exercising effective control over the territory concerned. Another may maintain a military or administrative presence while the legality of that presence remains disputed. The international legal system does not automatically recognize territorial sovereignty merely because a state succeeds in exercising physical control. Nevertheless, practical control can influence the circumstances in which a dispute is managed.
This distinction is especially important for smaller countries. Belize cannot reasonably approach every confrontation through military escalation. Its national interests require disciplined diplomacy, professional security forces and continued reliance on international law. But those commitments should not be confused with indifference toward the practical exercise of sovereignty.
If Belizean citizens repeatedly encounter obstruction while attempting to navigate an area Belize considers sovereign territory, the government has reason to examine whether those incidents are affecting ordinary access and the exercise of national authority. If Guatemalan personnel increasingly assert operational control, the relevant institutions should document the circumstances and determine whether existing bilateral arrangements are functioning as intended.
That does not mean every confrontation represents an organized strategy of territorial expansion. Such a conclusion would require evidence concerning orders, policy, operational planning and the intentions of the authorities involved. But governments do not need to establish a hidden strategy before recognizing that repeated incidents can create risks. A country should be able to distinguish between maintaining peaceful relations and allowing an unresolved dispute to produce an increasingly unstable operational environment.
Guatemala Is Not Russia, and Belize Is Not Ukraine
Comparisons between international conflicts can illuminate patterns, but they can also become misleading when important differences are ignored. Russia’s seizure of Crimea involved the deployment of military forces into internationally recognized Ukrainian territory, the occupation of strategic institutions and the subsequent annexation of the peninsula. The operation occurred within a wider confrontation concerning Ukraine’s political orientation, Russian military interests and the regional security order.
The Belize–Guatemala dispute has a different historical and legal foundation. Guatemala maintains a territorial, insular and maritime claim that Belize contests, and both countries have agreed to submit the dispute to the International Court of Justice. Their relationship also involves diplomatic engagement, regional institutions and mechanisms intended to manage incidents while the legal process continues. These differences are substantial.
Guatemala has not replicated Russia’s use of unidentified armed personnel in Crimea, and the incidents documented in the Sarstoon do not establish a comparable annexation operation. Nor is there sufficient evidence to conclude that Guatemala intends to launch a full-scale invasion of Belize. The comparison is therefore not a prediction. It concerns the importance of recognizing how territorial disagreements can become more difficult to manage when repeated incidents alter the practical conditions surrounding them.
It also concerns the responsibilities of governments to maintain credible documentation, operational preparedness and diplomatic engagement before circumstances deteriorate.
The lesson is not that every territorial dispute will become Ukraine. It is that countries should not assume the absence of full-scale war means that every development occurring below that threshold is inconsequential.
The Russian Meeting at the United Nations
There is another development that caught my attention. On September 25, 2026, Guatemala’s Foreign Minister Carlos Ramiro Martínez Alvarado met Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in New York during the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly. Guatemala’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs publicly confirmed the meeting and described discussions concerning bilateral relations, diplomatic cooperation, trade, cultural exchange and investment.
The meeting occurred during a period in which Belize had recently protested another Sarstoon confrontation. Given the subject of Zelenskyy’s interview and Russia’s own territorial conduct in Ukraine, I found the timing worth examining.
But timing is not evidence of coordination. The public account of the meeting does not establish that Belize was discussed. It does not establish that Russia provided Guatemala with military advice concerning the Sarstoon, nor does it demonstrate that Moscow has any involvement in Guatemala’s territorial claim.
Diplomatic meetings between states are ordinary features of international relations, including between countries whose policies differ substantially. Guatemala’s engagement with Russia should therefore be examined according to the actual substance of the relationship rather than treated as evidence of a concealed arrangement.
The appropriate questions concern the extent of diplomatic, economic and security cooperation between the two countries, Guatemala’s positions concerning the war in Ukraine and whether any documented developments have implications for regional security.
Those are legitimate subjects for international-relations research. They should not be converted into allegations that the available evidence cannot sustain.
The International Court of Justice Is Not a Substitute for Preparedness
Belize and Guatemala have chosen an international legal process for resolving their territorial dispute. That decision provides a framework through which competing claims can be examined according to law rather than determined through military confrontation. The case before the International Court of Justice concerns Guatemala’s territorial, insular and maritime claims. The eventual judgment will be consequential for both countries, and the obligation to pursue peaceful dispute resolution remains fundamental while proceedings continue.
But international litigation does not eliminate the need for effective national institutions.
Belize must still maintain the capacity to monitor its borders, document incidents, protect its citizens and communicate its position through appropriate diplomatic channels. Its security forces must operate professionally, particularly where encounters involve personnel from another country. Its foreign ministry must preserve reliable records and ensure that developments affecting the dispute are addressed through established procedures.
There is also a responsibility to maintain public confidence.
Citizens should be able to understand what has occurred during significant territorial incidents, what actions their government has taken and how those actions relate to the country’s wider legal and diplomatic strategy. Appropriate operational information may require confidentiality, but secrecy should not become a substitute for accountability.
The relevant question is whether Belize possesses an adequately coordinated system connecting border monitoring, maritime operations, diplomatic reporting and the legal proceedings before the Court.
Such coordination matters because evidence collected during individual incidents may become important to understanding broader patterns of conduct. It also matters because preventing an unnecessary confrontation requires reliable communication between the institutions responsible for managing one.
The Belize Territorial Volunteers and the Importance of Civilian Documentation
One of the distinctive features of the Sarstoon dispute has been the involvement of Belizean civilian groups, particularly the Belize Territorial Volunteers. Their journeys into the area have drawn public attention to the practical realities of navigation, access and territorial authority.
Civilian documentation can serve an important public-interest function. Photographs, recordings and firsthand accounts may reveal incidents that would otherwise receive limited attention. Such evidence can help journalists, researchers and public institutions examine competing accounts of what occurred.
However, civilian activity in areas involving armed personnel also introduces safety considerations. Volunteers and other members of the public should not be expected to assume responsibilities belonging to professional security institutions. Nor should the pursuit of documentation unnecessarily increase the risk of confrontation. The appropriate relationship between civic engagement and national security requires both respect for citizens’ rights and careful consideration of operational safety.
Belizean institutions should be capable of independently monitoring developments in the Sarstoon without relying exclusively on civilian initiatives to bring recurring problems to national attention. That is not a criticism of the volunteers. It is a question about the capacity of the state. A government responsible for protecting its territory should possess the institutional means to establish what is happening within it.
What Belize Should Be Asking
The comparison with Crimea ultimately raises questions concerning the adequacy of Belize’s existing arrangements rather than the inevitability of military escalation. Are incidents in the Sarstoon being documented through consistent procedures that allow developments to be compared over time? Do Belize’s security and diplomatic institutions possess a shared understanding of recurring operational problems? Are bilateral mechanisms producing measurable improvements in navigation, communication and the prevention of confrontation?
There are also questions concerning regional engagement. CARICOM has already expressed support for Belize’s territorial integrity and called for the prevention of further incursions. The Organization of American States has played an important role in supporting peaceful relations between Belize and Guatemala. The effectiveness of those arrangements should be examined through their actual implementation, including whether commitments made following previous incidents have reduced the likelihood of recurrence.
The June 2026 joint declaration between Belize and Guatemala reaffirmed principles including sovereignty, territorial integrity, non-intervention and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Such commitments are important, but their practical value depends on whether they influence conduct during subsequent encounters. The relevant measure is not simply how many declarations governments issue. It is whether the arrangements established through those declarations help prevent the incidents that made them necessary.
I Would Rather Be Cautious Today Than Regretful Tomorrow
There is a temptation in public affairs to interpret concern as alarmism, particularly when the subject involves national security or international conflict. But responsible vigilance is not the same thing as predicting catastrophe. I do not believe Belize should abandon diplomacy, approach Guatemala with hostility or assume that every confrontation in the Sarstoon is evidence of an imminent invasion. The country has substantial interests in maintaining peaceful relations with its neighbor, and the international legal process offers a means of resolving a dispute that has endured for generations.
Nevertheless, I am unwilling to dismiss recurring territorial incidents simply because they have not escalated into something more serious. Listening to Zelenskyy describe the history of Ukraine’s war reminded me that governments and societies often interpret the significance of earlier events differently after a major crisis. Actions that once appeared limited may acquire greater importance when examined as part of a longer sequence. That does not mean the future can be predicted from every warning sign. It means governments have a responsibility to examine patterns before the consequences of ignoring them become irreversible.
As a Belizean, my concern is straightforward. I want my country to preserve its sovereignty, protect its citizens and resolve its territorial dispute peacefully. I want the institutions responsible for those objectives to possess the competence, coordination and resources necessary to fulfill them. I also want Belizeans to understand that the pursuit of peace does not require pretending that recurring confrontations are insignificant.
There is nothing contradictory about supporting international law while insisting upon effective border monitoring. There is nothing provocative about expecting diplomatic agreements to produce practical improvements. And there is nothing unreasonable about asking whether our national institutions are adequately prepared for circumstances that may become more difficult than those confronting us today.
The purpose of examining Ukraine’s experience is not to suggest that Belize is destined to repeat it. It is to recognize that history becomes useful when it encourages societies to examine vulnerabilities before those vulnerabilities produce consequences they can no longer easily manage.
Before History Becomes an Explanation
President Zelenskyy’s reflections on Crimea are inseparable from the extraordinary human costs of the war that followed. His interview concerns families, loss, national survival and the responsibilities of leadership under circumstances few political figures will ever experience. Those experiences deserve to be understood within Ukraine’s own history rather than reduced to a convenient analogy for another country’s dispute.
But international history can also encourage smaller countries to examine their own institutions with greater seriousness. For Belize, the Sarstoon represents an unresolved question involving sovereignty, access, security and the effectiveness of peaceful dispute-management arrangements. The documented incidents of 2025 and 2026 demonstrate that the issue is not merely theoretical.
The appropriate response is neither complacency nor confrontation. It is disciplined attention to the evidence, effective coordination among national institutions, sustained diplomatic engagement and a commitment to preventing further incidents while the legal process continues. The comparison with Crimea has limits, and those limits matter. Russia’s actions in Ukraine cannot simply be attributed to Guatemala, nor should diplomatic engagement between Guatemala and Russia be treated as proof of intentions concerning Belize.
Yet recognizing those distinctions does not make the questions surrounding the Sarstoon disappear. It makes the investigation more precise. What matters is whether Belize is sufficiently attentive to developments affecting the practical exercise of its sovereignty, whether existing mechanisms are preventing repeated confrontations and whether the country’s institutions are prepared to respond responsibly if circumstances change.
I would prefer that these questions eventually prove unnecessary. I would prefer that Belize and Guatemala resolve their dispute peacefully, that the Sarstoon becomes an area of predictable and safe navigation, and that future generations inherit a relationship no longer defined by territorial uncertainty. But I would also prefer that Belize never find itself looking backward at a sequence of events and wondering why its institutions failed to recognize their significance.
I would much rather Belize confront these questions today than find itself, years from now, examining a sequence of incidents and wondering why the warning signs were not taken more seriously. Sovereignty is not protected merely by possessing internationally recognized borders. It requires institutions capable of exercising their responsibilities, documenting challenges, maintaining an effective presence and responding with the diplomatic and legal discipline necessary to prevent disputes from escalating.
President Zelenskyy’s reflections on Crimea remind us that the significance of an event is not always fully appreciated when it first occurs. History is often considerably clearer in retrospect, when the consequences of earlier decisions have become impossible to ignore. But the purpose of studying history is not simply to recognize mistakes after they have produced irreversible consequences. It is to develop the judgment necessary to avoid repeating them.
Belize should never have to discover the value of its sovereignty through the experience of losing control over any part of its territory. Nor should its citizens be expected to accept recurring uncertainty about their ability to navigate waters and access places they understand to be part of their country.
Comments