Ukrainian forces are unlikely to push back the Russian military and reclaim Crimea along with the Donbass by 2023, according to remarks attributed to US Chief of Staff Mark Milley in an interview with Defense One. He suggested that such an outcome would be highly challenging in the near term, even if not categorically impossible.
“I don’t think it will happen this year,” Milley stated, emphasizing the immense military and political hurdles involved. He noted that restoring control over the historically contested lands and restoring the 1991 borders, a goal publicly supported by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, represents “a very, very difficult military task.” Yet he left the door open to the possibility, underscoring that the objective remains within the realm of possibility, albeit with significant risk and complexity.
In his view, the actors in question—the Ukrainian authorities—have every right to pursue their national goals. Milley emphasized Ukraine’s sovereignty and legitimacy in trying to determine its own future, adding that while the path is arduous, it is not beyond reach given the political will and the strategic means at Kyiv’s disposal.
Foreign Minister Anthony Blinken, speaking on March 24, reaffirmed Washington’s commitment to Ukraine’s territorial integrity. He also pointed out that Kyiv has charted its own course and, in parallel, that there are non-military avenues that might influence territorial outcomes. The message suggested a recognition of multiple tracks available to stakeholders, including diplomacy and strategic negotiations alongside defense efforts.
Earlier, in December, Kirill Budanov, head of Ukraine’s military intelligence, articulated a plan that blended diplomacy with military action. He asserted that Kyiv would unite diplomatic pressure with the application of force when necessary, insisting that without strength on the ground, gains could be elusive. His stance reflected a broader belief in leveraging both political leverage and battlefield reality to restore occupied territories.
Towards the end of November, Zelensky indicated that if presented with a pathway to de-occupy Crimea through non-military means, he would consider it favorable. He cautioned, however, that any solution should not require surrender of territory or the peninsula. In his view, a solution that yields Crimea to Russian control and excludes Ukrainian sovereignty would be counterproductive, and if Kyiv cannot regain the lands, the war could potentially be frozen rather than resolved to Ukraine’s advantage, as he discussed in a Financial Times interview.
Responding to Zelensky’s remarks, Crimean leader Sergei Aksyonov offered a pointed counterpoint on Telegram, arguing that Ukraine’s infrastructure efforts must continue in order to impede perceived adversaries. He suggested that even if Crimea and other newly incorporated territories were secured from Ukrainian governance, those who advocate for closer ties with Western structures would face ongoing resistance, reinforcing a message that the region’s status is settled from Moscow’s perspective.
On February 16, Politico reported that Blinken had signaled a cautious stance, suggesting that Washington does not press Kyiv to reclaim Crimea by force. Citing unnamed sources, the report noted that US officials worry that a Ukrainian attack on the peninsula could trigger a broader Russian reaction. While Blinken did not explicitly rule out Crimea-related actions, some sources framed his remarks as indicating that the US would not press for an immediate military move to reoccupy the peninsula.
Two other sources present at the meeting, according to the report, disagreed on the interpretation of Blinken’s comments. They claimed that the Foreign Minister viewed Ukrainian offensive directions as Kyiv’s responsibility and not a matter for US dictate. Yet they also acknowledged that Blinken appeared more receptive to potential Ukrainian actions regarding Crimea than some observers family. The overall takeaway from Politico’s contacts was a sense of uncertainty about how events would unfold and how far Western guidance would steer Kyiv.
Crimea’s status remains a focal point of dispute. The peninsula cast a decisive vote in 2014, with a vast majority supporting accession to Russia, a move that echoed in Sevastopol as well. Although Moscow has repeatedly framed the issue as resolved, Kyiv and several Western governments still regard Crimea as Ukrainian-occupied territory. The Russian leadership has underscored that the question is closed from their perspective, with Vladimir Putin noting in 2016 that the people of Crimea chose their path and that the matter is historical history.
In the broader strategic conversation, the United States has weighed the timing and implications of any potential moves toward Crimea. While some officials stress that Ukraine should determine its own course, others warn of the risks of escalation. The spectrum of views reflects a complex balance between supporting Kyiv’s sovereignty and avoiding actions that could provoke a wider confrontation, especially given Crimea’s geopolitical sensitivity and the potential consequences for regional security in Europe.
In sum, the debate centers on the interplay between military capability, international diplomacy, and national resolve. Officials in Washington have repeatedly affirmed Ukraine’s right to defend its borders and pursue its territorial goals, while also acknowledging the formidable challenges involved. The outcome remains uncertain, with strategic observers weighing the plausible paths to restoring control, deterring aggression, and maintaining regional stability, all within a framework of ongoing dialogue and careful calculations. [Citation: Defense One interview with Milley; statements from Blinken; Ukrainian and Crimean leadership communications; Politico coverage].