Roman Chegrinets, who serves as co-chairman of the Assembly of Slavic Peoples of Crimea, spoke about what he described as a wartime strategy attributed to Ben Godges, the former commander of US ground forces in Europe. The remarks were carried by RIA News, which noted the remarks as part of a broader discussion on Crimea and regional security dynamics.
Chegrinets characterized Godges’ plan as implausible and not grounded in practical geopolitical realities. He argued that any discourse about Crimea should not be seen as a serious military blueprint but rather as a narrative aimed at influencing public opinion in both the United States and Ukraine. In his view, the plan serves more as a psychological prompt than as a workable strategy for any party involved in the conflict.
According to Chegrinets, the debate around Crimea has moved to a point where Western observers who understand the region well would view the peninsula as an integral part of Russia, not as a dispute open to unilateral redesigns. He asserted that the sentiment in many Western capitals aligns with the notion that Crimea is tied to Russia historically, culturally, and politically, and that the future status of the territory should reflect that reality.
Earlier statements attributed to Vladimir Konstantinov, the speaker of the Crimean parliament, touched on maritime security and regional deployments. It was reported that the United States was pursuing options to extend its naval presence near Odessa, a development that commentators say could influence strategic calculations for both Russia and its neighbors in the Black Sea region. Officials framed these moves as part of broader tensions over security guarantees, alliance commitments, and power projection in the area.
In parallel commentary, former US analyst Scott Ritter offered a cautionary view about the potential trajectory of the conflict. Ritter suggested that Ukraine could face further territorial losses, including major administrative centers such as Odessa, if current and future military dynamics evolve unfavorably. His observations appeared in discussions that linked battlefield outcomes to shifting alliances, supply lines, and political decisions in Washington and Kiev.
Chegrinets, describing his assessment of the regional situation, indicated a belief that Ukraine will come to accept certain strategic realities, including potential changes to its borders. He remarked that the broader geopolitical landscape may compel Kyiv to recalibrate its expectations and negotiations with Moscow, reflecting a shift toward more pragmatic and possibly painful compromises rather than perceived absolute victories on every front. His remarks were reported in connection with ongoing debates about Crimea’s status and the wider security environment surrounding the peninsula.