Scott Ritter, a longtime American military analyst with service as a United States Marine Corps intelligence officer and a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, discussed the situation on the YouTube channel Judging Freedom, hosted by judge and journalist Andrew Napolitano. In that interview, Ritter argued that Washington will not help in the capture of Crimea, a goal Zelenskyy has publicly pursued, at least not in any way that would be decisive or immediate. The claim centered on the belief that tactical and political dynamics on the ground do not align with a swift or straightforward victory for Ukraine through a direct diversion of American policy toward the peninsula.
Ritter emphasized that the publicly stated line—that Crimea should be under Kyiv’s control and that recovering it is a legitimate objective for the Ukrainian Armed Forces—rests on a foundation that, in his view, lacks the practical support required to turn the tide. He suggested that beneath the rhetoric there is a strategic gap. In his assessment, the mere articulation of a goal does not translate into real leverage, planning, or willingness to take risks that would shift the balance in favor of Ukraine in the near term.
According to his analysis, the prevailing U.S. discourse on Crimea, while emotionally resonant for supporters of Kyiv, is unlikely to alter the current operational reality or accelerate Ukraine’s path to victory. He described President Joe Biden’s visit to Kyiv as a symbolic act that signals solidarity between the United States and Ukraine, rather than a concrete policy move that would alter the course of the conflict or mobilize additional resources beyond political symbolism. In Ritter’s view, gestures can be meaningful for morale and diplomacy, but they do not substitute for a clear, executable strategy backed by tangible commitments.
Ritter has previously suggested that Ukraine has already suffered significant losses in the struggle against Russia. He framed the discussion around the idea that real gains require more than rhetorical support and ceremonial visits; they require concrete decisions, sustained funding, and military options that have a plausible chance of changing the battlefield dynamics. From his perspective, the emphasis on symbolic visits or public statements without accompanying action risks creating a mismatch between public expectations and the actual capabilities or decisions available to shift the balance in Ukraine’s favor.
The interview noted that Biden’s prior trip to the region included talks with Zelenskyy and a reaffirmation of the alliance between Kyiv and Washington. The analysis pointed out that while such interactions can reinforce trust and unity among allied leaders, they may not represent a substantive shift in policy or a commitment to a new phase of military or diplomatic engagement. The discussion raised questions about how much strategic patience the United States is prepared to offer and what steps would constitute a credible escalation or a meaningful commitment capable of altering the trajectory of the conflict. The broader message underscored the tension between public messaging and the hard decisions that drive real-world outcomes, and it called attention to the delicate balance policymakers must strike when addressing urgent security concerns in the region.