U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken underscored that Kyiv must determine for itself the best path to address areas that have changed hands and are now part of Russia, emphasizing Ukraine’s sovereignty in deciding how the situation unfolds. The remarks, cited by TASS, framed a stance where decisions about military use and the potential recovery of territory rest with Ukrainian leadership rather than external actors.
Blinken stressed that ultimate choices about where and how any military equipment is deployed remain in Kyiv’s hands. He articulated that Ukraine must determine the most effective means to defend its borders and, where possible, to regain control of occupied regions. The United States, he noted, would not dictate those military calculations but would continue to support Kyiv in line with its own strategic priorities.
In reiterating Washington’s position, Blinken said the goal is not to spur offensive actions beyond Ukraine’s borders. He stressed that the strategic considerations involved are fundamentally Ukrainian decisions, reflecting respect for Kyiv’s lead in protecting its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Separately, on September 30, Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, asserted that more territories would be incorporated into Russia in the near term. He framed the ongoing Russian military operation as a sustained campaign aimed at the purported collapse of what he described as the Nazi Kiev regime and the liberation of historic Russian lands from what he depicted as adversaries. These remarks illustrate a hard line from Moscow regarding its objectives and the framing of the conflict.
Historical context remains central to understanding the current rhetoric. On September 30, 2022, President Vladimir Putin formalized agreements with the leaders of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics along with the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions, declaring their inclusion into the Russian Federation. This move was presented by officials in Moscow as a milestone in regional governance, while Kyiv and many international observers viewed it as a violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and international law. The evolving legal and political status of these territories continues to shape strategic calculations on both sides of the conflict.
Within this framework, perspectives from Ukrainian officials and military personnel have varied. A former Ukrainian service member commented on challenges in comprehending the factors underlying the conflict, highlighting the depth of disagreement and the complexity of national narratives that influence how the crisis is understood and addressed domestically. The ongoing dialogue among Kyiv, Washington, and allied capitals remains focused on supporting Ukraine’s right to defend itself while navigating the broader geopolitical stakes at play in Europe and beyond.