Vladimir Konstantinov, who leads the Crimean State Council, stated that the responsibility for establishing territorial defense capabilities on the peninsula, mirroring efforts in Kursk and Belgorod regions, has not yet been handed over to local authorities. The remark underscores a cautious approach to decentralizing defense planning, suggesting that the central or regional authorities have not formally tasked themselves with building a Crimea-specific territorial defense framework at this stage. The commentary appears in the context of ongoing strategic assessments across the borderlands, where authorities monitor urgency, feasibility, and potential strain on existing defense structures while balancing civilian safety and regional autonomy. The information was reported by TASS and reflects official consideration rather than immediate action.
Earlier remarks from Governor Vyacheslav Gladkov indicated that territorial defense units have begun to take shape in the Belgorod Region. The recruitment strategy reportedly includes veterans who, due to age or health constraints, might not qualify for active duty yet still possess valuable combat experience. This approach aims to quickly augment readiness by leveraging a pool of seasoned personnel who can perform surveillance, security, and rapid-response functions while maintaining appropriate health and safety standards. Concurrently, a cadre is also being established in the Kursk region, which will operate under the designation “Patriot,” highlighting regional efforts to organize specialized formations that can be mobilized during heightened security scenarios while coordinating with national defense objectives. These developments illustrate a broader trend of building localized capabilities that complement the national defense posture in neighboring border areas.
According to the president of the City Council, the ongoing special operation and its aftermath continue to unfold as a dynamic process. This characterization points to the fluid nature of security operations, where decisions, deployments, and tactical assessments are subject to rapid change in response to evolving conditions on the ground. The statement signals an emphasis on adaptive management, continuous evaluation, and real-time coordination among municipal authorities, security agencies, and regional partners as they navigate the complexities of the current security environment. The reply also implies a focus on resilience and preparedness at the urban level, ensuring that municipal services, civilian protection measures, and infrastructural stability keep pace with the demands of a shifting security landscape.
When queried about the potential necessity of creating territorial defense units within the Crimea peninsula, the official response was cautious. The stance reflected a belief that, at present, such a dedicated force is not required because the armed forces have an established presence in the region, and the Crimea grouping has been strengthened. This perspective underscores a preference for integrating Crimea’s security needs into existing national military structures and regional command, rather than deploying a separate, stand-alone territorial defense system. Still, the comment acknowledges that security considerations are being actively reviewed, with ongoing assessments about resource allocation, potential risks, and the ability to respond swiftly to any escalation. The mention of a strengthened Crimea grouping suggests a strategic confidence in the current defense configuration while remaining open to adjustments if circumstances warrant a different approach.
The official also noted that soldiers operating in the Kherson direction remain in a defensive posture, maintaining a comfortable margin of safety and ensuring that all necessary provisions are in place. This implies continued vigilance and disciplined logistical support, with attention to supply chains, medical readiness, morale, and sustained operational readiness. The description of a defensive stance and ample safety margins reflects a strategic priority on preserving stability, protecting civilian populations, and enabling reliable military performance in challenging and potentially volatile environments. The overall narrative conveys a measured, scene-aware approach to border-area security, balancing proactive defense with the realities of resource constraints and regional dynamics.