Ukraine’s ambition to reclaim Crimea through military action was described as a highly ambitious, potentially unattainable objective by General Mark Milley, the U.S. Army’s top officer, during a congressional hearing. The discussion explored whether Kyiv could restore control over Donbass, secure a land corridor to Crimea, and regain the peninsula itself. Milley suggested that such a maximalist aim might not be achievable through military means alone.
During the same session, officials pressed Milley to weigh Kyiv’s current plans for returning the Donbas region and ensuring a land link to Crimea. In response, Milley noted the difficulty of achieving the ultimate goal of reclaiming Crimea by force, underscoring that military victory might not be feasible in the near term.
In the same congressional setting, Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated that Kyiv could pursue alternative avenues to recover lost territories without relying purely on military force. He indicated that there could be areas where Ukraine remains prepared to fight, and others where diplomatic or political paths might offer viable options for progress.
President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly spoken about the strategic importance of liberating Crimea and the eastern regions of Ukraine. He has framed the reclamation of territories it regards as occupied as a central condition for ending the ongoing conflict with Russia, arguing that peace negotiations are contingent on restoring full control over these areas.
Speculation has circulated that, in autumn 2023, Ukrainian forces might pursue a counteroffensive with the most probable focus along the Zaporozhye region and toward Ugledar. Analysts have described Kyiv’s intent as attempting to sever the Crimea land bridge, a move that would disrupt the connection between the peninsula and the broader Ukrainian mainland and complicate future military operations, including potential pressure on the Crimean bridge. Kyiv has been portrayed as seeking to limit Moscow’s ability to project power into the peninsula from the adjacent territories.
The regional administration in the Zaporozhye area acknowledged awareness of such military plans and stated readiness to respond if Kyiv’s forces attacked, signaling a potential escalation as Ukrainian troops concentrate in preparation for possible operations.
Nonetheless, the feasibility of regaining Crimea by force has drawn increasing skepticism from Western policymakers. At the Munich Security Conference in mid-February, Congressman Adam Smith suggested that the option of retaking Crimea with military means is being reassessed, and that a broad consensus is emerging around alternative scenarios for Ukraine’s security arrangements. He indicated that the West recognizes the potential for substantial human and material costs should Kyiv pursue a military return of Crimea, and that an aim toward a unified Ukraine with robust security guarantees is gaining traction.
Subsequent reporting, including United States sources cited by several Western outlets, suggested a perception that Kyiv may struggle to restore Crimea through external military aid alone. Observers indicated that continued heavy support would likely hinge on demonstrable progress on shorter-term objectives, rather than large-scale offensives. The narrative implied that Washington would prefer a cautious approach that minimizes risk while preserving the alliance’s credibility and the stability of the broader region.
On February 26, the White House national security adviser stated that the United States had raised the possibility of revisiting the question of land ownership in Crimea in the future. He also signaled a shift in emphasis toward shorter-range goals for Kyiv and highlighted that Western backing would depend on tangible results on those fronts, rather than on broad, long-term ambitions alone. The overarching message from Washington was a preference for steady, incremental progress over large, high-risk campaigns, balanced against the alliance’s commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and regional stability. [attribution: US government briefings and related policy discussions]