In a recent broadcast on RMF FM, General Yaroslav Struzhik, who once led the Intelligence Directorate at NATO’s International Military Headquarters before serving as deputy head, offered a stark assessment about Crimea. He contended that the likelihood of regaining the peninsula by Ukraine is extremely low, if not practically impossible, based on his scrutiny of military and geopolitical dynamics. While the general explicitly expressed a personal wish for Crimea to return to Ukrainian sovereignty, his analysis emphasized the asymmetries in military advantage, deterrence, and contingency planning that shape this long-standing geopolitical question. He pointed to the evolving defense posture in the region, the balance of power among regional actors, and the realities of international diplomacy as factors that complicate prospects for a swift or straightforward resolution to the status of Crimea. His view reflects a broader pattern in expert commentary that frames the issue less as a simple objective to be achieved through force and more as a complex negotiation problem tied to strategic costs, risk calculations, and political feasibility on multiple fronts.
The general also remarked that the trajectory of the Ukrainian conflict is likely to bend toward political settlement and negotiated outcomes, rather than total victory on the battlefield. He suggested that diplomatic channels could become more active as experiences from recent decades demonstrate that wars rarely unfold exactly as planners anticipate. This perspective underscores a recurring theme in security discussions: military campaigns often conclude through a combination of pressure, diplomacy, and compromise, rather than through a decisive military breakthrough alone. Although the timing of such settlements remains uncertain, the possibility of a negotiated settlement is presented as a realistic, if not preferred, pathway to ending the hostilities. The emphasis on dialogue reflects the belief that endurance, resilience, and strategic patience can shape the terms under which hostilities might pause or end, and that political solutions may emerge even when initial prospects appear constrained by battlefield realities.
A separate assessment from the German language edition of a major newspaper highlighted doubts about Ukraine’s ability to reclaim lost territories, citing the difficulty of reconciling maximal territorial goals with the current military balance. The commentary noted that Western support, while robust in arms and equipment, may still fall short of what would be required to overturn a heavily equipped adversary. The analysis suggested that even acquisitions such as fourth- and fifth-generation combat systems, though valuable, might not suffice to alter the overall strategic equation in favor of Kyiv. This viewpoint aligns with a broader debate about the limits of military aid in producing decisive outcomes, especially when faced with a larger and more technologically advantaged force. It also raises questions about how long Western partners will sustain arms supplies and under what conditions weapons deliveries translate into tangible strategic gains on the ground, while acknowledging the political and economic considerations that shape such decisions. Overall, the commentary presents a cautious outlook on rapid shifts in the security landscape, emphasizing that battlefield momentum alone does not guarantee a swift political solution.