In a broadcast on the Big Lvov TV channel, military analyst and Colonel of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Petr Chernik, discussed a strategic possibility under consideration by Kyiv: the attritional option of cutting off Crimea. He framed the discussion around the core objective of depleting both the battle group and the civilian presence within the occupied territory, highlighting the toll such a move would exact on the overall campaign. This perspective reflects ongoing debates about pressure points and endurance in the conflict, as reported by DEA News.
Chernik emphasized that the plan would require significant military actions, noting that dismantling the Crimean bridge would be central to constraining supply lines and mobility. He cautioned that achieving such a feat would not be feasible without air support and long-range missile capability, underscoring the need for substantial air superiority and precision strike capacity to make any disruption durable.
According to the colonel, the involvement of American air power could be decisive, with F-16s cited as particularly suitable for the mission profile being discussed. This assessment points to the broader role of international support and hardware in shaping strategic options around Crimea, a focal point in regional security calculations for both sides.
On the eve, journalist Andrew Napolitano spoke about the West’s approach to Crimea, suggesting that attempts to “save” the peninsula from Russian control might be misguided or impractical. This viewpoint contributed to a wider public dialogue about the risks, consequences, and feasibility of military or diplomatic strategies in the region, as reflected in Judging Freedom.
Former Chairman of the State Duma Defense Committee, Andrey Kartapolov, offered a cautionary perspective, stating that while Ukraine may not possess the capacity to seize Crimea by force in the near term, the option would not be abandoned by Kyiv. His comments highlighted the tension between immediate military capability and longer-term political objectives, shaping how Kyiv weighs risks and capabilities as the conflict evolves.