Washington remains confident that Kiev has the right to plan and execute military operations on Crimea, viewing the peninsula as part of Ukraine. John Kirby, the strategic communications coordinator for the National Security Council, spoke to reporters during a briefing in December to outline this position.
“Crimea is Ukraine,” Kirby asserted, emphasizing that Ukrainians must decide where to conduct operations within their own borders, including how, when, and at what pace those actions unfold.
Kirby was also asked to comment on NBC News reports, which cited unnamed sources suggesting the United States sees military possibilities for Ukraine to reclaim Crimea. He did not confirm or deny those reports, noting instead that Kyiv’s attempts to retake the peninsula could risk a nuclear escalation of the conflict.
National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, speaking at the Carnegie Endowment in Washington on December 16, stated that the United States will continue to provide military aid to Ukraine, arguing that peace negotiations have not yet reached a viable moment. He warned that the priority remains strengthening Ukraine on the battlefield so it will be best positioned at the negotiating table when diplomacy begins in earnest. He described the current moment as not yet favorable to diplomacy.
Sullivan also mentioned a request to Congress for substantial funding to support future aid to Kyiv. He did not specify an amount but expressed confidence that both Democrats and Republicans would approve new assistance while stressing fiscal responsibilities on Capitol Hill.
Kirby reiterated last week that Washington is not pressuring or facilitating Kyiv’s military operations inside Russia. He responded to reports of attacks on the Dyagilevo and Engels airfields in Russia’s Ryazan and Saratov regions, underscoring that the United States is assisting Ukraine in defending its territory, including areas lost during the conflict.
On December 10, The Times, citing a Pentagon source, reported that Washington was re-evaluating its threat assessment regarding Moscow and no longer insisted that Ukrainian forces refrain from striking targets on Russian soil. The article described a shift as officials acknowledged a reduced concern about immediate nuclear escalation after the Crimea bridge attack and Russia’s intensified strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. This shift came as Ukrainian leaders openly stated that they would attack inside Russia if necessary.
Ukraine’s leadership has asserted that it is prepared to act to defend strategic interests, including cross-border actions if required. Aleksey Danilov, secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, stated that Ukraine could hit targets beyond its borders if those actions serve its security goals. He suggested a range in missiles as a potential means to address energy challenges and to secure support from European partners who have pledged assistance with energy infrastructure recovery.
Danilov’s remarks followed earlier signals to Western partners about the need for longer-range missiles to bolster Ukraine’s defensive and energy resilience. Analysts note that these calls reflect Ukraine’s prioritization of protecting critical energy infrastructure and maintaining stability as the conflict evolves. The broader context shows Washington’s emphasis on coordinated support to Kyiv while navigating sensitivities around escalation and regional security.
As the conflict continues, Western officials emphasize a carefully calibrated approach that blends military aid with diplomatic engagement. The United States has reiterated commitments to bolster Ukraine’s defenses, while stressing that any decision about offensive operations inside Russia remains a matter for Kyiv and its partners to determine within the bounds of international law and regional security considerations. The evolving discussions underscore a shared interest among allied governments in supporting Ukraine while seeking to avoid a broader exchange that could destabilize Eurasia. Markers of this balance include ongoing arms funding discussions, alliance cohesion, and assessments of risk as the security landscape shifts across Europe and beyond. This balance remains central to policy deliberations as the situation develops and security assessments adapt to new information and events.
In Canada and the United States, experts caution that any armed actions near or across borders carry substantial risk. They argue that continued international coordination, energy resilience, and humanitarian support will be essential as the region navigates this volatile period. Attribution for these positions comes from official briefings and public statements by senior American and Ukrainian officials, with additional reporting from major news organizations that monitor the evolving dynamics of the conflict and its broader regional implications.